# Comprehension of old forms of language



## Karton Realista

Hi
I would like to ask you about the century or time period from which you can read books/poems/et caetera in your own language (and understand them) without the help of publisher (explanations at the bottom of the page an so on).
When it comes to Polish I'd say it's XV century and works like Rozmowa Mistrza Polikarpa ze Śmiercią - Wikiźródła, wolna biblioteka and Satyra na leniwych chłopów - Wikiźródła, wolna biblioteka (there is one explanation in the latter but it is not necessary to understand the text).


----------



## ahvalj

The earliest dated East Slavic Old Church Slavonic text (1050's) is still more or less comprehensible (>50%):
Электронная библиотека ИРЛИ РАН > Собрания текстов > Библиотека литературы Древней Руси > Том 1 > Слово о законе и благодати митрополита Илариона (the second option button — _оригинал_)

The comprehension reaches 90% in the texts of the 17–18th centuries.

P. S. Replaced the link.


----------



## Hulalessar

In the case of English, Old English cannot be understood without study as it comes across as a foreign language. Middle English is not totally incomprehensible, but still needs study to understand a text fully. By the time you get to the start of the Early Modern English period in the late 15th century texts are much more readily understood, though footnotes may be needed to explain archaisms. Shakespeare represents no major problems to the modern reader or theatregoer, though again some words may need explaining either because they have fallen out of use or because they have changed their meaning. By the end of the Early Modern English period, around 1700, texts are essentially in Modern English. Anyone who can read _David Copperfield (1849)_ can read _Robinson Crusoe (1719)._


----------



## Karton Realista

ahvalj said:


> The earliest dated East Slavic Old Church Slavonic text (1050's) is still more or less comprehensible (>50%)


Well, I was talking about a bit higher level of comprehension. I can somewhat understand Bogurodzica (estimated XIII/XIV century) for example (we have it at schools with a lot of footnetes and of course modern spelling), but just about 40- 50% when it's "bare".
In longer old texts like "Kazania Świętokrzyskie" most problems are caused by complex form of past tense, e.g. "był jestem" "jest została" - something still present in Czech and Slovak (with more normal-sounding som, si, ste, sme, jsem, jsi, jste, jsme).


----------



## Stoggler

Hulalessar said:


> Shakespeare represents no major problems to the modern reader or theatregoer, though again some words may need explaining either because they have fallen out of use or because they have changed their meaning.



To add to Hulalessar's comment here, sound changes in the language since Shakespeare's time mean that we can also miss intended puns or jokes.  You might read a passage and think that something didn't quite add up, until you learn from notes that the sound had changed

But that's a minor issue compared to overall comprehension.


----------



## Panceltic

_The Freising Manuscripts_ (Brižinski spomeniki), the oldest document in Slovene (and the first Latin-script Slavic text), dated around 1000, can be understood quite well (not completely of course, I'd say about 75%) if reading the transcript into 'modern' orthography.


----------



## francisgranada

Karton Realista said:


> When it comes to Polish I'd say it's XV century and works like Rozmowa Mistrza Polikarpa ze Śmiercią - Wikiźródła, wolna biblioteka and Satyra na leniwych chłopów - Wikiźródła, wolna biblioteka ...


Yes, but these texts are transliterations/transcriptions of the original texts using modern spelling. So practically we have two questions:
1. the understandability of old versions of a given language (when transcribed with modern spelling)
2. the capacity to read and understand old written texts in a given language (in original spelling)

See, for example, the _Bogurodzica _(the proper manuscript is from around 1408; the text itself is considered a copy of a former text  from the XIII/XIV century):

Using modern spelling
_Bogurodzica dziewica, Bogiem sławiena Maryja 
U twego Syna Gospodzina matko zwolena, Maryja 
Zyszczy nam, spuści nam. Kyrieleison.
Twego dziela Krzciciela, bożycze, Usłysz głosy,
napełń myśli człowiecze. Słysz modlitwę, jąż nosimy, 
A dać raczy, jegoż prosimy: A na świecie zbożny pobyt,
po żywocie rajski przebyt. Kyrieleison.
_
Original spelling
_Bogv rodzicza dzewicza, bogem slawena maria
U twego syna gospodzina matko swolena maria
Siszczi nam spwczi nam. Kyrieleyson
Twego dzela krzcziczela boszicze, Uslisz glosi,
naplen misli czlowecze. Slisz modlitwo yosz nosimi
A dacz raczi gegosz prosimi: A naswecze zbozni pobith,
posziwocze raski przebith. Kyrieleyson.
_
The transcribed text is quite well understandable (in my opinion, but I am not a native Pole); the only word I don't understand at all is _zyszczy. _As to the original text, I'd have problems with "deciphering" the meaning of _siszczi, boszicze, spwczi, yosz, posziwocze, raski*_.

*perhaps the form _raski _is simply an error


----------



## apmoy70

In the case of Greek, Homeric (or Epic) Greek is too foreign, mostly because it's based on the dialectal fusion of Ionic with Aeolic, two marginal dialects (well Ionic maybe not so marginal as it influenced Attic Greek) in the Greek speaking world. Apart from a few words here and there, or some fossilised expressions known and used as proverbs even today, it's unintelligible to the untrained ear.

Classical Greek is also different, the problem is not only vocabulary (many inherited words in the modern language from the ancient, have changed meaning), I think the major difference is syntax. But it's much easier to comprehend than Homeric Greek, and with thorough training becomes easy and comprehensible. It depends alot on the writer though, Lysias' language is easier than Thucydides, Plato's register is lower than Aristotle's.   

Koine (Hellenistic) Greek, the language of the Christian Gospels in particular (the Greek of Paul's epistles is another chapter as the language used by Paul is more elaborate and higher register than the rest of the New Testament) is alot easier than Classical Greek, my paternal grandmother (b. 1906) who was practically illiterate, was able to grasp any passage from any of the four Gospels, in its original Koine form, if not to understand it to the last detail, to convey its core meaning.

The vernacular Byzantine Greek of 8th-9th-10th c. CE is very similar to the modern vernacular, bar the use of the infinitive, dative, some latinisms here and there, and a bit more complex and different syntax.

The late Byzantine Greek of 13th-14th CE is almost identical to the modern language.
As a general rule, Greek is more conservative than other languages.


----------



## ahvalj

apmoy70 said:


> The late Byzantine Greek of 13th-14th CE is almost identical to the modern language.


Katharevousa? (By the way, why do Greeks write _y_ but _ou_ in the modern transliterations, when _ου_ has been romanized through _u_ since the earliest Latin texts preserved?) And overall, how well do modern schoolchildren understand the katharevousa texts written, say, in the 1970's?


----------



## apmoy70

ahvalj said:


> Katharevousa? (By the way, why do Greeks write _y_ but _ou_ in the modern transliterations, when _ου_ has been romanized through _u_ since the earliest Latin texts preserved?) And overall, how well do modern schoolchildren understand the katharevousa texts written, say, in the 1970's?


Katharevousa was never the language of the people, it was an artificially constructed (or conceived) language used for official purposes only.
It's so stilted and absurd that even I have difficulties to comprehend Katharevousa texts constructed in early '70's let alone modern schoolchildren.
The language of the Byzantine acritic poetry (7th-11th c.) or the vernacular of Michael Glycas (historiographer, 12th c.) is much more comprehensible.


ahvalj said:


> By the way, why do Greeks write _y_ but _ou_ in the modern transliterations, when _ου_ has been romanized through _u_ since the earliest Latin texts preserved?


Can you give an example? I should have written Katharev_u_sa instead of Katharev_ou_sa, that's what you mean?


----------



## ahvalj

apmoy70 said:


> Can you give an example? I should have written Katharev_u_sa instead of Katharev_ou_sa, that's what you mean?


Yes. Or better _catharevusa_. Cp. Latin Dictionary Headword Search Results


----------



## apmoy70

ahvalj said:


> Yes. Or better _catharevusa_. Cp. Latin Dictionary Headword Search Results


Thanks for the link, never gave it a thought, we're wont to that kind of transliteration perhaps? laziness? probably both


----------



## Sardokan1.0

About Sardinian language I can understand about 70 or 80% of a XIVth century text, while earlier texts from XII or XIth century are harder to understand because they are much closer to Latin, there are even texts published by Caralis Chancellor's Office in XI or XIIth centuries and written in Sardinian but using Greek alphabet

the text below is from the Carta de Logu (Chart/Constitution of the Country), published in 1397, the Carta de Logu is a Juridical Codex which regulated every aspect of the Country, with laws apt for everything, and remained in use until 1827. The text below is a law article about rape on women

*Ancient Sardinian (XIVth century, from central Sardinia)*


Spoiler



"Volemus et ordinamus qui si alcuno homini levarit per forza muleri coyada, o ver alcuna atera femina qui esseret iurada, o isponxelarit alcuna virgini per forza, et de'ssas secundas causas esseret legitimamenti binquidu, siat iuygadu qui paghit pro sa coyada liras .D (500).; et si non paghat infra dies .XV. de c'at esser iuygadu, siat illi segadu unu pee pro modu qui llu perdat. Et pro sa bagadia siat iuygadu qui paghit liras .CC. (200), et siat anchu tenudu pro levarela pro mugere, si est senza maridu, e plaquiat a sa femina; et si non la levat pro mugere, siat anchu tentu pro coyarela secundu sa conditioni de sa femina, et issa qualidadi de'ssu homini. Et si cussas causas issu non podet faghire a dies .XV. de c'at essere iuygadu, siat illu segadu s'unu pee per modu que lu perdat. Et pro sa virgini paguit sa simili pena, et si non adi dae hui pagare seguint illu uno pee, ut supra”



*Actual northern Sardinian (Logudoresu)*


Spoiler



"Querimus e ordinamus qui si calchi homine leéret pro forza femina cojuada, oppuru calchi atera femina qui esséret iurada, o violentéret calchi virghine pro forza, e de sas segundas causas esséret legittimamente proadu, siat juigadu qui paghet pro sa cojuada liras 500, e si no pagat intre dies XV. dae cando hat a essere juigadu, li siat segadu unu pe in manera qui lu perdat. E pro sa bajana siat juigadu qui paghet liras 200, e siat puru tentu a si la leàre pro muzere, si est senza maridu, e piaghìat a sa femina, e si no la léat pro muzere, siat puru tentu a si la cojuare a segunda de sa cundizione de sa femina, e sa calidade de s'homine. E si cussas causas issu no podet faghere a dies XV. dae cando hat a essere juigadu, li siat segadu unu pe in manera qui lu perdat. E pro sa virghine paghet sa simile pena, e si no hat dae ue pagare li seghen unu pe, comente supra"


----------



## Karton Realista

francisgranada said:


> The transcribed text is quite well understandable (in my opinion, but I am not a native Pole); the only word I don't understand at all is _zyszczy. _As to the original text, I'd have problems with "deciphering" the meaning of _siszczi, boszicze, spwczi, yosz, posziwocze, raski*_.


Zyszczy is old imperative of "ziścić" - to make something true, real, e.g. to fulfill one's dream.
I phrased the thread ambigiously, what I was asking about is understanding the language, not capacity to read books written in old scripts.
BTW please tell me what "zwolena" and "dziela" mean. You'll be quite surprised, especially with "dziela" meaning "for" - nowadays "dla" .
An expanded version with footnotes: Autor nieznany, Bogurodzica :: Wolne Lektury
I recomend to read that one, in this text there's a lot of "false friends" between Polish and Polish .
Some linguists tell that Bogurodzica was quite archaic for its time.


----------



## origumi

In Hebrew we can read documents of 2500-2800 year ago and have good understanding, although some material is challenging. This is when the text is written in modern font, and niqqud (punctuation) or matres lectionis are added (both are replacements for missing vowels, Hebrew was written those days as abjad). An educated Hebrew reader can even digest neighboring languages like Moabite or phoenician of the 9th-7th century BC and still have some >50% of understanding.

This is due to the irregular history of the Hebrew language.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all, 

Frivolously @Stoggler #5:

Intelligent actors will always make Shakespeare's language intelligible. Or indeed much of Chaucer's. There is, sadly, a dire lack of intelligent actors.

More seriously: written language is sometimes more, sometimes less, intelligible to modern users, and the degree of intelligibility depends on the recipient's linguistic awareness. No-one in my immediate environment could understand the Lord's Prayer in Anglo-Saxon _as written_, but many would at least pick up what it is if it were read aloud.

Σ


----------



## Hulalessar

Scholiast said:


> More seriously: written language is sometimes more, sometimes less, intelligible to modern users, and the degree of intelligibility depends on the recipient's linguistic awareness. No-one in my immediate environment could understand the Lord's Prayer in Anglo-Saxon _as written_, but many would at least pick up what it is if it were read aloud.



Anglo-Saxon would be a bit more intelligible to someone who had never studied it if written as sounded in today's spelling. Once you get into it a little and have an idea of how it is pronounced some words will reveal their meaning. Someone who knows English has more of a head start than someone who does not.

In post 7 francisgranada makes the point that transliterations/transcriptions of the original texts using modern spelling can make life easier. Mallory's _Le Morte d'Arthur_ is a bit hard going if the spelling is not modernised. The orthography of Shakespeare's day was not as strict as today and allowed variations. There were two forms of the letter <s> and <u> and <v> were interchangeable as were <i> and <j>. Reading a text printed in the early seventeenth century can be a bit disconcerting.


----------



## Nawaq

I remember reading _La Princesse de Clèves_ in school, without too much trouble, the book date back to 1678.


----------



## Nino83

In Italian, you can read and understand Dante's Divina Commedia or Boccaccio's Decamerone, written during the XIV century.
You can have some problem with syntax, because word order was freerer and a bit different and they used a lot of subordinate and coordinate clauses, i.e a sentence can be 7 lines long.

Boccaccio, Decameron 5th day, novel n. 9


> Dovete adunque sapere che Coppo di Borghese Domenichi, il quale fu nella nostra città, e forse ancora è, uomo di grande e di reverenda autorità ne' dì nostri, e per costumi e per vertù molto più che per nobiltà di sangue chiarissimo e degno d'eterna fama, essendo già d'anni pieno, spesse volte delle cose passate co' suoi vicini e con altri si dilettava di ragionare: la qual cosa egli meglio e con più ordine e con maggior memoria e ornato parlare che altro uomo seppe fare.



I'd rewrite it today like this:

Dovete, dunque, sapere che Coppo di Borghese Domenichi, il quale, nella nostra città, è e fu uomo di grande e reverenda autorità ai giorni nostri, e chiarissimo e degno d'eterna fama molto più per costumi e virtù che per nobiltà di sangue, essendo già in avanti con gli anni, spesso si dilettava a ragionare con i suoi vicini e con altri: questa cosa egli seppe fare meglio, con più ordine, maggior memoria e parlare ornato di qualsiasi altro uomo.

As you can see, spelling and vocabulary are not a problem. Syntax is somewhat different.


> spesse volte delle cose passate co' suoi vicini e con altri *si dilettava di ragionare *
> la qual cosa egli meglio e con più ordine e con maggior memoria e ornato parlare che altro uomo *seppe fare*


For example, here the verb is placed at the end of the sentence.
Today it's not usual to use two consecutive, coordinated relative clauses plus a reason clause, i.e three consecutive subordinate clauses, in the middle of the independent clause. 

Italian is one of the most conservative Romance languages.  

I know, for example, that Icelandic speakers can read without problems many sagas written in the XII century, so probably it's a normal thing for conservative languages.


----------



## danielstan

origumi said:


> This is due to the irregular history of the Hebrew language.



Out of topic:

I read somewhere that in modern Israel there are many idioms in use by Jews immigrated from different corners of the world, mostly after 1948. 
For example Yiddish is very germanized.
I also read that the state is trying to revive an ancient Jew language by promoting in mass media ancient words (from ancient manuscripts) as a mean to unify the various dialects that are in use today.

Can you confirm and elaborate the above ideas? 

As a result I assume that for a modern Jew it is harder or easier to understand an ancient Jew text depending on the dialect he is speaking in his community.

On topic:
Oldest Romanian surviving text is from 1521 AD and is highly understandable for a modern Romanian. There are some Slavic words in it which need explanations in footnotes.
The lack of older texts is a big problem in Romanian philology.


----------



## Karton Realista

danielstan said:


> For example Yiddish is very germanized.


Yiddish is not germanised, it's a germanic language with Hebrew influences. It is used in Russia, Moldova and some other places with Jewish communes.


----------



## francisgranada

Karton Realista said:


> ... Zyszczy is old imperative of "ziścić" - to make something true, real, e.g. to fulfill one's dream.


 I  supposed that it's from something like  _ziścić_, but it didn't make me sense to me because _zistiť_ in Slovak means approx. _to determine, to find out, to detect. _


> BTW please tell me what "zwolena" and "dziela" mean. You'll be quite surprised, especially with "dziela" meaning "for" - nowadays "dla" .


_Zwolena_ is ok to me, as _zvolená_ in Czech/Slovak means _chosen_. _Dziela_ for _dla_ is really surprising, I still don't believe it  ... 





> I recomend to read that one, in this text there's a lot of "false friends" between Polish and Polish .


You are right, first I have read only the the first two verses.


----------



## Karton Realista

francisgranada said:


> _Zwolena_ is ok to me, as _zvolená_ in Czech/Slovak means _chosen_.


Old Polish has a lot of Czech loans like "bydlić", "bych". In general it kinda resembles Czech more than Slovak, which is generally more close to it nowadays. 
I was also kinda surprised when I saw kołacz in "Rozmowa mistrza (...)" - I thought that it didn't exist in Polish culture at all. 

Could you say something about Hungarian?


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> In Italian, you can read and understand Dante's Divina Commedia or Boccaccio's Decamerone, written during the XIV century.
> You can have some problem with syntax, because word order was freerer and a bit different and they used a lot of subordinate and coordinate clauses ...


I agree. I only want to add that there are also some differences in conjugation, e.g. the 1st.pers.sg. imperfect in _-a_ (io _era, amava,_...) or the  imperfect and conditional endings, e.g. _venia, po[d]ria, dovrien _(instead of _veniva, potrebbe, dovrebbero_).  There are some differences in the usage of the articles and 3rd.pers.pronouns, like _lo _(instead of_ il_),_ il/el_ (instead of _lui _or _egli_), etc ...

Of, course, there were other differences as well _(sovra, neente, dimandar, de le, fue, esta, aere, puote  ...) _ but altogether they do not represent real obstacles for understanding, in my opinion. However, the foreros discussing in this thread are are surely more trained in reading old texts and in languages in general (at least to a certain degree) than the "common people", so our opinion  may not be fully representative ("objective") ... 





Karton Realista said:


> Could you say something about Hungarian?


Yes, I shall ...


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Early Sardinian texts date back to XIth century, and are harder to understand than the XIVth century text posted above; they were administrative logs produced by Sardinian monasteries, these texts called Condaghes (from Byzantine Greek "Kontakion") recorded every juridical activity in which the monastery was involved; the notes were divided in three categories : Daturas (Donations) Tràmutos (Exchanges, Trades) Kertos (Litigations), every new entry in the log was preceded by an incipit in which the writer explained why he/she was adding a note to the Condaghe, or if he/she renewed the Condaghe in a new copy.

the texts below are from the Condaghe de Santu Pedru de Silki (XI-XIIth centuries), and remain quite understandable for a modern central-northern Sardinian, in blue is the same text translated in modern northern Sardinian (Logudoresu)



Spoiler



_Ego Maximilla, abatissa de Scu. (Sanctu) Petru de Silki ki lu renovo custu Condake, ad unore Deus innanti, e de Scu. Petru e de Sca. Julia, e ccun boluntate dessu donnu meu iudike Gunnari, e dessu fiiu iudike Barusone, e dessos frates, e dessos maiorales de Locudore, dandem’isse paragula de renobarelu su Condake._

_Eo/Deo Maximilla, abatissa de Santu Pedru de Silki, qui lu renovo custu Condaghe, ad honore de Deus in anti, e de Santu Pedru e de Santa Julia, e cun voluntade de su segnore meu iudiche Gonare, e de su fizu iudiche Barisone, e de sos frades, e de sos mazores de Logudoro, déndemi isse paràula de lu renovare su Condaghe_

_Apus Sauren
Ego Maximilla abbatissa de Scu. Petru de Silki ki renovo custu Condake de Scu. Imbiricu de Sauren, ki fuit de tempus meta, et ego pettîli boluntate assu donnu meu iudike Barusone de Laccon pro renouaremilu, et isse co Donnu  bonu, deitiminde assoltura de fakerlu novu, et ego fatholu novu cun boluntate de Deus e dessa sua.

In sos tretos de Sauren
Eo/Deo Maximilla, abatissa de Santu Pedru de Silki, qui renovo custu Condaghe de Santu Chìrigu de Sauren, qui fit dae tempus meda, ed eo li pedìa su permissu a su segnore meu iudiche Barisone de Làcone pro mi lu renovare, e isse comente segnore bonu, m'inde daìat su permissu de lu faghere a nou, ed eo lu fatto a nou cun voluntade de Deus e de sa sua_


----------



## francisgranada

Hungarian.

Spelling
In Hungarian there are many palatal consonants, vowels_ ü_ and _ö,_ plus the length of the vowels is distinctive, so we have at least 18 phonemes for which there are no adequate letters in the classical Latin alphabet. Although traces of the modern spelling can be found already in the 12th century, no spelling standard existed in that period and the diacritical signs did not exist at all, so the reading of the oldest texts is really difficult for an untrained person.

Grammar
The main difference consists in the usage of some verbal tenses and the synthetic passive,  absent in the modern language. However, this verbal forms were used (at least sporadically) until the end of the 19th or even in the early 20th century literature, so they are still understandable *** (perhaps except for "totally illiterate" persons ...). In the earliest documents we also find some "case endings" written separately, i.e. they were still treated like postpositions, for example _utu rea_ (A.D. 1055, today _útra, _"on/to the road").

Phonetics
Some sound shifts took place during the middle ages, especially the monophthongization of some diphthongs and the lost of some vowels. However, these changes didn't affect equally all the Hungarian speaking area (e.g. corresponding diphthongs are still present in some dialects).

Example from the 12th century:
(Original spelling)
_Latiatuc feleym zumtuchel mic vogmuc: yſa pur eſ chomuv uogmuc. Menyi miloſtben terumteve eleve miv iſemucut Adamut eſ odutta vola neki paradiſumut hazoa. Eſ mend paradiſumben uolov gimilcictul munda neki elnie. Heon tilutoa wt ig fa gimilce tvl. Ge mundoa neki meret nu eneyc: yſa ki nopun emdul oz gimilſtwl, halalnec halalaal holz... _

(Modern spelling)
_Látjátuk feleim szümtükkel, mik vogymuk: isa, pur és homou vogymuk. Menyi milosztben terümtevé elevé miü isemüküt Ádámut, és odutta vola neki paradicsumut házoá. És mend paradicsumben volou gyimilcsektűl mundá neki élnie. Héon tilutoá űt igy fá gyimilcsétűl. Gye mundoá neki, méret nüm enéik: isa ki nopun emdül oz gyimilcstűl, halálnek haláláal holsz... 
_
In my opinion, this text is understandable also for an untrained person, especially when pronounced (read aloud). In this fragment there are four words not used today (two of them are totally absent in modern Hungarian).

Example from the 14th century (transliteration):
_Úgy szólánok: világnak kezdetüitül fugva rojtonk ez nem lött vala,
hugy szűz leán fiot szülhessen, szűzségnek tükere tisztán maradhassun,
és nekünk hírünk benne ne lejessen..._

Fully understandable, though stylistically somewhat unusual from the modern point of view, and a bit archaic also phonetically (something like in case of _altissimu, si, focu ..._ instead of _altissimo, sei, fuoco_ ... in the _Cantico delle creature_ of Saint Francis****).

Hungarian texts from the 15th/16th century are usually quite easy to understand, even the spelling is (almost) modern.  As to the 17th and 18th centuries, I have some books printed in this period - they are normally readable and understandable.


* ** The so called _Károlyi Biblia_ from 1590, the protestant translation of the Bible, is still in use (as far as I  know). In spite of the now unused verbal tenses it is perfectly understandable. The spelling, with some small (also typographic) differences, corresponds to that of the modern Hungarian.

**** What a beautiful name


----------



## Karton Realista

Seeing people give a longer story made me feel like I should also add something.
I'll kinda expand what happened in Polish later:
*Middle Polish and attempt at making a coherent alphabet by Jan Kochanowski
*a á à ą b b́ c ć ç d θ θ´ θ˙ é è ę f g h ch i k l ł m ḿ n ń o ó p ṕ q r ŗ ſ σ ß t v w ẃ x y z ź ƶ*
(ç, θ, θ´, θ˙, ŗ, σ, ß are respectively modern cz, dz, dź, dż, rz, ś, sz, ſ is s)
á, é and ó are not long vowels, they were pronouced quite differently and existed as a side effect of disappearing of long vowels. Article (in Polish) about that: Ścieśnienie – Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia . The latter two still survive in Kashubian. Most Polish people don't know how to pronounce them, which doesn't have anything to do with understanding the text. Latter two existed even in the romanticism;
The most notable creator of that time is poet Jan Kochanowski, whose work is representant of renaissance.
His most famous cycle is "Treny" written for his deceased little daughter: https://wolnelektury.pl/media/book/pdf/treny.pdf 
(you can see a lot of footnotes in there, mostly because it's aimed at children who are tortured with this in schools).
*Enlightement and baroque bring new linguical forms, that are more coherent than previously, + baroque kind of tangles the language here and there, making complex forms for stylistic purposes. One of the early baroque artists, Mikołaj Sęp Szarzyński: Mikołaja Sępa Szarzyńskiego Poezye/Sonet IV. O wojnie naszej, którą wiedziemy z szatanem, światem i ciałem - Wikiźródła, wolna biblioteka
Ignacy Krasicki (enlightenment) and his satire about priests (he was a bishop himself, but he criticised clergy anyway): Monachomachia/Pieśń I - Wikiźródła, wolna biblioteka
*Romanticism, positivism - modern Polish. There were a lot of changes in those times, but both remain ~99% understandable
When I read some of the replies I was really surprised how similiar old and new forms are in some languages, in Polish those forms remain understandable, but are completely different if you were to put a "translation" and compare it with the original text.
So let's do it:
*Original:
Bogurodzica dziewica, Bogiem sławiena Maryja 
U twego Syna Gospodzina matko zwolena, Maryja 
Zyszczy nam, spuści nam. Kyrieleison.
Twego dziela Krzciciela, bożycze, Usłysz głosy,
napełń myśli człowiecze. Słysz modlitwę, jąż nosimy, 
A dać raczy, jegoż prosimy: A na świecie zbożny pobyt,
po żywocie rajski przebyt. Kyrieleison.
________________________________________________
My clumsy attempt at translation:
Matko boska, dziewico, oblubienico Boga, Maryjo 
U swojego Syna, Pana naszego, matko wybrana, Maryjo
Spraw nam, ześlij nam. Kyrie eleison.
Dla twojego Chrzciciela, Synu boży, wysłuchaj głosów,
spełń pragnienia ludzi. Wysłuchaj modlitwy, którą zanosimy, 
A niech dać raczy, jego prosimy: na świecie dostatni pobyt,
po życiu pobyt w raju. Kyrie eleison.

As I said in some previous post, some words look like modern ones, but carry a different meaning.


----------



## Penyafort

Regarding *Catalan*, most people nowadays cannot fully understand Ramon Llull's philosophical works in 13th-century Catalan, and have serious difficulties with the four Catalan Grand Chronicles (13-14th centuries), Ausiàs March's poetry or even more transitional 15th-century novels like Curial and Guelfa or The White Knight Tirant lo Blanch. When these are read in schools, it is usually in abridged form, adapted to modern Catalan.

Catalan was, though, quite unified in the Middle Ages as the documents issued by the Royal Chancellors of the Crown of Aragon worked as a standard model for the written language. So with the help of resources such as the dictionaries and grammars of Old Catalan, understanding a text may become relatively easy for educated readers once they get used to the old syntax, the context and the higher presence of native 'non-Iberian' forms and occitanisms. It obviously will vary a lot depending on the text and on the reader's knowledge.

I would therefore place the transition in the last years of the 1490s and the first decades of the 16th century, that is, the passing from the Middle Ages into Renaissance.

Regarding *Spanish*, I would use similar dates. Jorge Manrique's stanzas (1470s) are transitional but perfectly understandable, and the same could even be said of previous works of the 14th century. Garcilaso's sonnets (1520s) are already in Modern Spanish.

This, of course, does not imply that texts are easy to read from the 16th century onwards. There are nowadays _translations _of the Quixote to the literary Spanish of these days because most speakers can hardly understand the novel (1605-15) without constantly reading to footnotes. A bit like what happens with Shakespeare for English readers.

But generally speaking, I would say texts in Old Spanish (even those as old as the Poem of El Cid, 1200) tend to be much clearer for a modern Spanish speaker than texts in Old Catalan from the same date to a modern Catalan speaker. And without a doubt, both would understand much more of old writings in these languages than an English speaker would of the Beowulf. The level of difference between Old English and Modern one seems to me rather like the one between Vulgar Latin of the Early Middle Ages and the current Romance languages. These are, at least, my personal impressions.


----------



## Dib

The oldest texts that are traditionally called "*Old Bengali*" are Buddhist mystic poetry, popularly refered to as "Charyapada", from the turn of the last millenium (between 8th and 12th century). The relation of the language to Modern Bengali is basically the same as in the case of English. It is essentially a foreign language for us, but of course, we can spot a familiar word here and there. The next surviving literature is from 14th-15th century in early Middle Bengali (Shri-Krishna Kirtana, Bengali version of the Ramayana, etc.). They are quite nicely intelligible to modern educated people. We read small parts of that version of the Ramayana (15th century) in school without footnotes. Maybe the spelling was modernized - I don't know. Shrikrishna-Kirtana (14th century) is a bit more archaic, and would require more footnotes for sure.

The intelligibility depends also on the register of the language. The higher register has remained relatively stable over the centuries. The lower registers not so much.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Nawaq said:


> I remember reading _La Princesse de Clèves_ in school, without too much trouble, the book date back to 1678.



_La Princesse de Clèves_ was one of the easiest French books I ever read.
Reading Victor Hugo is much harder, in my opinion.



Penyafort said:


> Regarding *Catalan*, most people nowadays cannot fully understand Ramon Llull's philosophical works in 13th-century Catalan, and have serious difficulties with the four Catalan Grand Chronicles (13-14th centuries), Ausiàs March's poetry or even more transitional 15th-century novels like Curial and Guelfa or The White Knight Tirant lo Blanch. When these are read in schools, it is usually in abridged form, adapted to modern Catalan.
> 
> Catalan was, though, quite unified in the Middle Ages as the documents issued by the Royal Chancellors of the Crown of Aragon worked as a standard model for the written language. So with the help of resources such as the dictionaries and grammars of Old Catalan, understanding a text may become relatively easy for educated readers once they get used to the old syntax, the context and the higher presence of native 'non-Iberian' forms and occitanisms. It obviously will vary a lot depending on the text and on the reader's knowledge.
> 
> I would therefore place the transition in the last years of the 1490s and the first decades of the 16th century, that is, the passing from the Middle Ages into Renaissance.
> 
> Regarding *Spanish*, I would use similar dates. Jorge Manrique's stanzas (1470s) are transitional but perfectly understandable, and the same could even be said of previous works of the 14th century. Garcilaso's sonnets (1520s) are already in Modern Spanish.
> 
> This, of course, does not imply that texts are easy to read from the 16th century onwards. There are nowadays _translations _of the Quixote to the literary Spanish of these days because most speakers can hardly understand the novel (1605-15) without constantly reading to footnotes. A bit like what happens with Shakespeare for English readers.
> 
> But generally speaking, I would say texts in Old Spanish (even those as old as the Poem of El Cid, 1200) tend to be much clearer for a modern Spanish speaker than texts in Old Catalan from the same date to a modern Catalan speaker. And without a doubt, both would understand much more of old writings in these languages than an English speaker would of the Beowulf. The level of difference between Old English and Modern one seems to me rather like the one between Vulgar Latin of the Early Middle Ages and the current Romance languages. These are, at least, my personal impressions.



I have got through roughly two thirds of _Tirant lo Blanc_ in a complete (i. e. non-abridged) edition by Martí de Riquer, with only slightly adapted spelling and no other interventions of lexical or grammatical kind. It was a rather easy reading (because of the reduced vocabulary), although sometimes boring, not least due to the formulaic transitions from one chapter to another (forcing you, at least in theory, to read on and on until the end) and the overall lack of other structurating elements.

As for Cervantes' novel, I think the footnotes are necessary in order to explain context, since many of the things concerning everyday life that a contemporary reader didn't need to have explained to him are nowadays unclear. However, I haven't read it through yet (only excerpts), and neither "La Celestina" - they are both rather complex works.
This is also why I abandoned Dante's "Divina commedia": not because of lexical dificulties, but because the historical, cultural, social, rhetorical, philosophical and theological context demanded too many explanations.

So I think the difficulty of a given text depends not only on the time when it was written, but also on its subject and the way the author handles it.

As for Shakespeare, I have no problems handling his text in a theatrical performance, but I'm still in awe of reading them. More so for Chaucer's Canterbury Tales: they are more similar to German than contemporary English (and I happen to know German), yet too different, so reading is not easy even for native speakers.


----------



## rayloom

In Arabic it's quite complicated. The Quranic language forms part of the Arabic culture, as such understanding the Quran (written in the 7th century) poses no problems for most educated and many uneducated Arabs, save for a few words here and there. My grandparents from both sides were illiterate and had no problem understanding the Quran, or the media which used Formal (inflected) Arabic. My grandfather learned Formal Arabic just from listening to the radio and the Quran, he even composed poetry in it!
Literary works preceding the Quran have varying degrees of difficulty to understand, which could present more or less the closeness of the work to the literary Qurashi variant which is considered (by many) the basis of Classical Arabic. As well as the desert imagery and nomadic words.
Imru' ul-qays' ode dating from the 6th century is considered easier than Tarafa's ode although the latter was composed later.
Not many earlier works survived, except perhaps for Azzir Salim's poetry.
As for the language used in inscriptions, different scripts were used.
The Namara inscription (from the 4th century) uses the Nabatean inscription along with Aramaisms.
An older inscription from the 1st century BC, at Qaryat dhat Kahil, written in Musnad (Epigraphic South Arabian script), can be understood if transcribed into Arabic (transliterated + addition of the mater lectionis).



> عجل|بن|هفعم|بن|لأخه|رببل|بن|هـ
> ـفعم|قبر|ولهو|ولولدهو|ومـ
> ـرأته|وولدهو|وولد|ولدهم
> ونسيهم|وحرير|ذوأل|غلون|فـ
> ـأعذه|بكهل|وله|وعثر|أشرق
> من|عززم|وونيم|و
> شريم|ومرتهنم|أبدم
> بن|وكسم|عدكي|تمط
> ـر|أسمي|دم|والأر
> ض|شعر
> 
> Conformed to Standard Arabic script spelling (+ mater lectionis):
> عجل بن هفعم بنى لأخيه ربيب إل (ربيبيل) بن هفعم قبرا وله ولولده وامرأته وولدها وولد ولدهم ونسائهم وحرائر ذوي
> الغلوان فأعاذه بكاهل ولاه وعثار الشارق من عزيز ما وونيّ ما وشريّ ما ومرتهن ما أبدا ما
> (بلا؟ بين؟) وكسٍ ما عدكي تمطر السماء ديما والأرض شعيرا


----------



## Cossue

I think that most Galician texts from the 13th or 14th centuries can be understood by today's speakers, although they would *greatly *benefit of having a nearby dictionary, most notably when reading lyric compositions.

There is even a large number of Latin charters from the High Middle Ages which are composed as as word by word adaptation of the subjacent Romance speech, and which could be understood by a reader with little Latin knowledge but with a good knowledge of the Galician rural lexicon.


----------



## danielstan

rayloom said:


> In Arabic it's quite complicated.


I had few Arab colleagues in the faculty, all of them from Middle East. 
One from Iraq told me he can barely understand the Arabic dialects spoken in Mauretania or Morroco.

Do you subscribe to this point of view that modern Arabic dialects do form a _dialectum continuum_, but their extremities are significantly divergent?

From another had, do you consider the Quran has an important role in preserving a more or less unitary Arabic spoken today?


----------



## Pugnator

Karton Realista said:


> Hi
> I would like to ask you about the century or time period from which you can read books/poems/et caetera in your own language (and understand them) without the help of publisher (explanations at the bottom of the page an so on).
> When it comes to Polish I'd say it's XV century and works like Rozmowa Mistrza Polikarpa ze Śmiercią - Wikiźródła, wolna biblioteka and Satyra na leniwych chłopów - Wikiźródła, wolna biblioteka (there is one explanation in the latter but it is not necessary to understand the text).


I would say too XVI century for Neapolitan, maybe XVII but it depend also by the writer.


----------



## rayloom

danielstan said:


> I had few Arab colleagues in the faculty, all of them from Middle East.
> One from Iraq told me he can barely understand the Arabic dialects spoken in Mauretania or Morroco.
> 
> Do you subscribe to this point of view that modern Arabic dialects do form a _dialectum continuum_, but their extremities are significantly divergent?
> 
> From another had, do you consider the Quran has an important role in preserving a more or less unitary Arabic spoken today?



I can confirm what your colleagues have said. I have started understanding Algerian and Moroccan Arabic only after having mixed with their speakers here in France. Oriental and Occidental Arabic varieties do form a continuum. Other influences have also played a certain role in their variation. Peripheral Arabic varieties, spoken by some isolated communities, are even more difficult to understand. The Quran, and more generally the Arabic culture, helped somehow preserve spoken Arabic to a certain extent in my personal opinion.
Cypriot Maronite Arabic and Maltese have drifted further from their parent dialects due to their distance from the culture (along with the fact they were heavily influenced by Greek and Italian respectively).


----------



## Pugnator

Here an extract of a neapolitan text of 1604. I will later give a "modern" version
1604 text:
Pe cchiù de cincociento storie se pò vedere muto bene quanto songo state n'ogne tiempo Llostrisseme, e Nobelisseme le BAJASSE ; e stenga zitto Omero. chè dice ca li Pruoce se nnammorattero de Penelope, ca nne mente pe la canna, pocca se trova scritto, ch'erano spantecate pe le Bajasse; ed Ercole avenno venciuto tanta vestie, pe cchiù granne grolia soja voz'essere Vajassa; e co le Bajasse de Jole filava tutto lo juorno la lana. E chillo, che facette cacare de paura tutte li Troiane, non se vestette perzì da femmena; e p'avere parte de le LLaude Vajassesche, non se fece Vajassa de la bellissema figliola de lo Rre Liccomerda ? 
modern text:
Pe cchiù 'e cincociento storie se pò vedere assaje bene quanto songo state n'onne tiempo lustrissime e nobelisseme 'e VAJASSE; e stenga zitto Omero ca dice ca 'e Pruoce se nnamorattero 'e  Penelope, ca mentì senza pudore, pecchè se trova scritto, ch'erano spantecate p''e Bajasse; ed Ercole avenno venciuto tanta vestie, pe cchiù granne grolia soja vulesse essere Vajassa; e co le Bajasse 'e Jole filava tutt'o juorno 'a lana. E chillo, che facette cacare 'e paure tutt'a li Troiane, non se vestette perzì da femmena: e p'avere parte a 'e Llaude Vajassece, non se facette Vajassa d''a bellissema figliola 'e lo Rre Liccomerda ? 
English translation (done badly by me  )
And for more of 500 stories you can se well how much the maid was in any time most illustrious and most noble. And be quite Homerus, who say that the Proci (Suitors of Penelope; Translator note) fell in love with Penelope and lied shameless, because is found wrote that they suffered for love for the maids. And Hercules, as he had won so much dress (?? I don't know what he meant; Translator note)  to get more big glory, he wanted to be a Maid; and with the maid of Iole spinned the wool all day. And him, who made all the Trojan crap in their paint, don't even dressed like a girl, and to have a part on the Maidian (He created an adjective starting by the name Vajassa, wich mean maid, servant;Translator note) lauda, doesn't he made himself Maid of the most beautiful daughter of the King Lycomedes ? 


PS: Vajassa is a domestic servant of the rich (not anymore diffused) who had a lot of role on rich houses.


----------



## Pugnator

rayloom said:


> Cypriot Maronite Arabic and Maltese have drifted further from their parent dialects due to their distance from the culture (along with the fact they were heavily influenced by Greek and Italian respectively).


Maltese is most different not because it was influenced by the Italian but because it is the only survived dialect of  Siculo-Arabic language so it already started with a rich latin substrate and Sicilian had a lot of influence, later it was influenced also by French and English. It is also a lot different because it never used arabian alphabet but was always wrote with latin script.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Hi

I think that "vestie" is "bestie", related to all the mythological beasts defeated by Hercules in his famous 12 Labours

Curious the word Vajassa, it seems to be also related to the Italian "Bagascia", in Sardinian "Bagassa" (bitch) (dal francese_ bagasse_ cioè "_servente, fanciulla_")

the corresponding of "servant" in Sardinian is Teràccu, Teràcca, from Byzantine Greek "Therapon"


----------



## Pugnator

Sardokan1.0 said:


> I think that "vestie" is "bestie", related to all the mythological beasts defeated by Hercules in his famous 12 Labours


It could be possible, I think you are right. On Neapolitan "B" and "V" often became interchangeable and  a lot of words could be wrote with both B and V. (At example Bolere/Volere (To want) Buoje/Vuoje (oxen)  Boj/Voj (plural form of you) Bajassa/Vajassa (on the text you can see both variant ;P ) ).


Sardokan1.0 said:


> Curious the word Vajassa, it seems to be also related to the Italian "Bagascia", in Sardinian "Bagassa" (bitch) (dal francese_ bagasse_ cioè "_servente, fanciulla_")


Galliani said it come from the arab word "bagasch" that had the same meaning, here what he said on 1789:
"« "Vaiassa", serva di Casa. Viene dall'arabo, nella qual lingua "bagasch" significava lo stesso. Nel dialetto toscano "bagascia" è preso in mala parte, in senso, cioè, di "donna disonesta". Ma nel napoletano non è mai presa la voce "vaiassa" in questo significato, ma soltanto di "serva". »
"<<"Vaiassa", home maid. It come from the arab, when "bagasch" had the same meaning. On Tuscan "bagascia" is taken with a bad meaning, in the meaning, of "dishonest woman". But in the neapolitan isn't taken the word "vaiassa" with this meaning, but with only of home maid">>

Possible that on all those romance language there is a common Arabic derivation ? What say the French etymological dictionary ? (I wasn't able to find one online) .


----------



## rayloom

Pugnator said:


> Maltese is most different not because it was influenced by the Italian but because it is the only survived dialect of  Siculo-Arabic language so it already started with a rich latin substrate and Sicilian had a lot of influence, later it was influenced also by French and English. It is also a lot different because it never used arabian alphabet but was always wrote with latin script.



I didn't say it was the only reason. I would also argue against the "rich Latin substrate in Maltese", but in another thread if you wish.
Most Arab countries keep the Arabic script and the literary language mostly because it is the language and script of the Quran and the associated culture (I would refer you to the attempts to write Arabic in a romanised script, or to discard Formal Arabic in Egypt and Lebanon at some point), which was the point I was trying to make.
Also Arabic script inscriptions do appear in Malta well into the Norman period.


----------



## Pugnator

rayloom said:


> Also Arabic script inscriptions do appear in Malta well into the Norman period.


Well, this just mean that arabic who wrote with arabic script passed from there, and considering that arabs (or better Berbers)  was pirate is higly probable. Anyway a book that I've on the topic say that the most old maltese text is this 



 and is  wrote with latin script.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Pugnator said:


> Possible that on all those romance language there is a common Arabic derivation ? What say the French etymological dictionary ? (I wasn't able to find one online)



I don't think there is an Arabic derivation, I found this about the etymology

Etimologia : bagascia;


----------



## rayloom

Pugnator said:


> Well, this just mean that arabic who wrote with arabic script passed from there, and considering that arabs (or better Berbers)  was pirate is higly probable. Anyway a book that I've on the topic say that the most old maltese text is this and is  wrote with latin script.



This text is the oldest in what is considered Maltese language. That doesn't mean the Maltese didn't write in Arabic before that and during the Norman era. I also doubt pirates would leave funerary inscriptions in Maltese cities!


----------

