RE: In Defense of Bourgeois Pedants

[Rick Kirkham <rkirkham -at- seagullscientific -dot- com>]

> If anything, the English of
> the 1200s is simpler, and reads almost like a Basic Old English. 

Middle English is simpler because it is uninflected, not because it as a
sub-set of Old English. It is *not* the latter. 
The relative simplicity of Middle English only means that someone who knows
neither would find Middle easier to learn. It does *not* mean that someone
who knows one of the languages, but not the other, would be able to "fairly
easily" understand the other. Contemporary English is simpler than
contemporary German in exactly the same way that Middle English is simpler
than Old English, but Germans can't understand English. 
 
> It's true that Old English was more strongly inflected than modern
> English. However, from the 11th century onwards, inflection started
> to dwindle. If you read some of the prose, it's clear that, despite
> some of the convoluted sentences in Beowulf, English was already
> well on its way to becoming an analytical language (that is, one in
> which the order of words is more important to meaning than
> inflection). In the memorable phrase of one of my old professors,
> "the degeneration of the language in the 11th century is as pathetic
> as it is obvious."

Doesn't this support *my* belief rather than yours? It reinforces the
differences between English of 750 and English of 1200. 

> Actually, Middle English is far more intelligible if you have a
> basic Old English vocabulary (French and Latin help, too, of
> course).
> One proof is the survival of Old English/Old Norse words in
> dialects in Scotland and the North of England, all of which are far
> closer to Middle English than standard English: for example, "ken"
> for "understand," "gang" for "walk" or "go" and so on. The northern,
> late middle ages poem "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is
> especially interesting in this respect.

You've lost me here. How does any of this show that a 750 AD Englishman
could communicate with a 1200 Englishman "fairly easily"?
 
> > I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, however, if you can 
> cite a reliable
> > source for your claim.
> 
> It's not a matter of authority but direct evidence. 

I'm not in a position to make an independent comparison of my own. I have
found examples of middle and old English on the web (e.g. the Lord's prayer)
and I can barely understand about half the words of the middle English, and
the Old English might as well be Martian. Accordingly, I *have* to rely on
authority. But that shouldn't bother you. If a direct comparison would yield
the results you claim, then other experts will have reached the same
conclusion, so you should be able to cite others who think a 750 AD
Englishman could communicate with a 1200 Englishman "fairly easily". (You
mentioned your old professor. What's his name? Let's track him down and ask
him.)

As someone who seems to know both ME and OE, your ability to creatively
imagine what it would be like to know only one and not the other is only
marginally better than mine. Your personal success at understanding both is
not an accurate measure of whether a 750 AD Englishman could communicate
with a 1200 Englishman "fairly easily". (I know English and Latin and I'm
always impressed by the number of cognate terms, but it does not follow that
someone who knows only one of them could "easily understand" the other.)

Suppose a 1200s Englishman looks at that OE version of the Lord's Prayer.
What is he going to see? He's going to see some words (maybe 20% of them)
that look pretty familiar, but the rest will be indecipherable. Moreover,
because the grammar is different, the words he does recognize will seem to
him to be sprinkled randomly among the gibberish. He won't even be able to
determine the *part of speech* of those foreign words (something he probably
*could* do if OE and ME shared the same grammar). As a result, the ME
speaker might be able to grasp that the passage has something or other to do
with heaven and religion, but that's about all he'd get out of it. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver! (STC Discount.)
**NEW DATE/LOCATION!** January 16-17, 2001, New York, NY.
http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.

Take XML and Tech Writing courses online!  Our instructor-led courses
(4-6 hrs/wk) give you "hands on" experience at your convenience. STC members
get 20% off!  http://www.online-learning.com/index.html.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.