How far back in time can you understand English?
Itโs a thousand years of the English language, compressed into a single blog post.
"... as his post goes on, his language gets older. A hundred years older with each jump. The spelling changes. The grammar changes. Words you know are replaced by unfamiliar words, and his attitude gets older too, as the bloggerโs voice is replaced by that of a Georgian diarist, an Elizabethan pamphleteer, a medieval chronicler."
deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-โฆ
How far back in time can you understand English?
An experiment in language changeColin Gorrie (Dead Language Society)
reshared this
woe2you
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Hedders
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •That's fantastic.
I got as far as 1200.
brabo
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Bauke Kramer
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •From 1200 onwards, my knowledge of Frisian and Dutch helped me a bit. But even so, I quickly got lost...
C++ Wage Slave
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Mans R
in reply to C++ Wage Slave • • •Light
in reply to C++ Wage Slave • • •Same.
@Natasha_Jay
MattChippytea
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Jess
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Leeloo
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Nope. Didn't even get to the first unfamiliar word before I got stopped by "sign up for our mailing list" garbage.
Close tab.
Jayflo
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • •Mab_813 likes this.
Ciara
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Hard test! I'm reminded of this idea to warn people in 10,000 years, when our language has been lost, where we dumped nuclear waste.
โThey proposed we genetically engineer a species of cat that changes color in the presence of radiation. We release it into the wild to act as living Geiger counters. Then we create folklore and write songs and tell stories about these 'ray cats', the moral being that when you see these cats change colors, run far, far away.โ
99percentinvisible.org/episodeโฆ
Ten Thousand Years - 99% Invisible
99% InvisibleTheNovemberFella โ๐ณ๏ธ๐ ๐บ๐ฆโธ๏ธ๐ฐ๏ธ๐ reshared this.
Log ๐ชต
in reply to Ciara • • •Ciara
in reply to Log ๐ชต • • •Ryek Darkener
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •murks
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Dan Hugo (เนเธเธ)
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •I'm not entirely certain what this comment means.
What is that, 5 seconds?
commonst
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •int%rmitt]nt sig^al. ...~!...)
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Once you get that it all, sort of, makes sense.
luca
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Pino Carafa
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •HarryMutt
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Interestingly, as a German, I can understand quite a lot of the very old texts. But my mother had a PHD in English and French and knew a lot about old Germanic sagas and medieval German literature. So, that is nothing foreign to me.
If you read anything from Walther von der Vogelweide, you will clearly see the similarities to the oldest texts. Words and grammar are recognizable, and if you can read one, you can read the other.
But even in Shakespeare's time, you will find a lot of those common roots of our languages, and if you get used to the different spelling, the sound of it rings familiar. And as late as in Jane Austen's times, even the number format was still the same as in German, for instance, four-and-twenty and not twenty-four.
After all, with all the lost grammar and words, modern English is just a watered-down version of old German.
เฒเฒฟเฒฐเฒพเฒเณ ๐นโ๐พโ๐ฑ๐ต๐ธ (he/him)
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Franchesca
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Full Metal Archaeopteryx
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •stevenray
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Daniel Johnson
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •dragonfrog
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •that was fun!
I understood what was going on as far as 1300, got most of 1200, got the gist of 1100 but definitely missed some of it, and was fully guessing at what was going on in 1000 (it turned out i guessed at least a bit of it right so there was a shadow of comprehension).
Cainmark Does Not Comply ๐ฒ
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Lost me at 1600 "thouing". First word I had to understand from the context.
1200 still understood half.
Thought I lost meaning completely at 1100 until I imagined it was a play being performed, then got an eighth of it.
1000 could only glean some meaning from the spacing of the words, might as well be a completely different language to me.
CpyJx ๐
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •for an audible experience
loops.video/v/dxXFQREMjg
cappyjax
2026-01-30 01:30:31
Mason Loring Bliss
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Fun, but I have a some comments and criticisms.
1900: I wish the author had leaned less obviously on Clement Clarke Moore and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. They spoke (or wrote) a stylized English consciously, and our traveller would not.
1700: The letter "ſ", the "long s", is typographical, not linguistic. Readers at the time would read "congress" as readily as "congreſs".
1600: Again, this is mostly typographical variation. Spoken, one would understand it easily. The weird "thouing" want seen until some fifty years later.
1500: Spoken, this would present no trouble to a modern listener.
1400: Typographical again, wiþ only minor variations in þe ſpelling used. Nat harde to reade, alþouȝ again the letter ſubstitution can be rouȝ.
1300: I don't see "ſchaltou" that far back, bit I didn't dig hard. I imagine spoken, one would realize it's two words mashed together. A Germanic "en" seems to show up randomly. "Rewþe" made me smile.
1200 and earlier: I feel like the vocabulary is starting to c
... Show more...Fun, but I have a some comments and criticisms.
1900: I wish the author had leaned less obviously on Clement Clarke Moore and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. They spoke (or wrote) a stylized English consciously, and our traveller would not.
1700: The letter "ลฟ", the "long s", is typographical, not linguistic. Readers at the time would read "congress" as readily as "congreลฟs".
1600: Again, this is mostly typographical variation. Spoken, one would understand it easily. The weird "thouing" want seen until some fifty years later.
1500: Spoken, this would present no trouble to a modern listener.
1400: Typographical again, wiรพ only minor variations in รพe ลฟpelling used. Nat harde to reade, alรพouศ again the letter ลฟubstitution can be rouศ.
1300: I don't see "ลฟchaltou" that far back, bit I didn't dig hard. I imagine spoken, one would realize it's two words mashed together. A Germanic "en" seems to show up randomly. "Rewรพe" made me smile.
1200 and earlier: I feel like the vocabulary is starting to change here to the point where my unfamiliarity with the typographical anachronisms becomes an impediment. Hearing it spoken would help, and I'm interested enough to want to substitute modern characters for the archaic to see if that gets me further.
Thanks for posting this.
Jo - piรจce de rรฉsistance
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •I did read a lot of Medieval & Arthurian literature as a kid.
Robin Barton
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Melia_Runs_NYC
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •GJ Groothedde ๐ช๐บ
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •M. Grรฉgoire
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •sgt1372
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Solitha
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Loved that. I hit a wall at the 1200 section.
This is the kind of exercise any pedant needs to go through. There is no "pure" English to preserve. It's a living language.
Peter
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •teadrinker
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Marco Antoniotti
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •StuartB
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Parts of 1200 were just about readable, as were small bits of 1100, but anything beyond that was pretty much incomprehensible.
I think a lot of British people might find an audio version easier, as it would probably sound more like certain dialects that are still common today.
Fluffgar ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •v
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •"รe sayde Maiลฟter, what that hee apperid bifore me, was verely a Deuill, or so me รพouศte"
the said maister, what that he appeared before me, was verely a devil, or so me thought
so far im finding it really cool how much of this change is like spelling. like one could translate it literally and not feel like much meaning is lost
notsoloud
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •At 1200 I understood about half. Less than that in 1100 and 1000, but more than zero. It also helped when I realized the p was a w.
Being Danish did help. "sloศ hem and fรฆlde hem to รพe grunde" is not too far from modern Danish.
John_Loader
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Mohamed Al-Hajamy ๐พ
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •[empty]
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Jane
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •Kaliah
in reply to Natasha ๐ช๐บ • • •