# Language stability



## .   1

I wish to know about the stability of languages.

English from the time of Chaucer is intelligible to a modern reader and Shakespeare is lucid.

How far back is your language discernable to a modern reader?

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:
			
		

> English from the time of Chaucer is intelligible to a modern reader and Shakespeare is lucid.



I'd argue with your use of "intelligible" - "familiar-ish" might better fit. I'm certain that many here would struggle to give the precise meaning of these four lines.

_Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth 
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth 
Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne 
Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne, 
_


----------



## MarcB

As a lad I read Beowulf, without a glossary I would not have been able to understand it. http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~beowulf/main.html
As for the Romance languages I speak more than one and I find it easy to understand even ones I don't speak. Old texts are not so hard to understand save a few words.


----------



## gjou

Hello,
French language has been stabilized around the 16th or 17th century. Rabelais (1483-1553) and Molière (1622-1663), like Shakespeare I guess, are very easy to understand. Before that, it was old french, not unreadable, but quite difficult to understand.


----------



## amelesperanza

I agree for Molière but not that much for Rabelais...


----------



## panjandrum

With a little help, English song lyrics from around 700 years ago are about as understandable as modern lyrics 
_*Svmer is icumen in*_


----------



## Outsider

. said:
			
		

> How far back is your language discernable to a modern reader?


This is very difficult to quantify. Medieval Portuguese is comprehensible to a fair extent for a modern native speaker, but you find lots of unfamiliar words in it (words we don't use anymore), and also familiar words used with unfamiliar meanings. Another problem is the syntax, which can be considerably different from the modern one. Since we may not be used to the sequence in which the words were combined in the old days, it's easy to get lost in the middle of a sentence. To add to the problem, Portuguese literature was mostly composed of poetry, until the 19th century, and of course poetry is more difficult to follow than prose.


----------



## gjou

amelesperanza said:
			
		

> I agree for Molière but not that much for Rabelais...


Yes, perhaps, but this famous quote :

_"Mais parce que, selon le sage Salomon, 
sapience n’entre point en âme malivole, 
*et science sans conscience n’est que ruine de l’âme,* 
il te convient servir, aimer et craindre Dieu._ 
_Je ne bâtis que pierres vives, ce sont hommes._ 
_Mieux est de ris que de larmes écrire Pour ce que rire est le propre de l’homme."
*Gargantua*._ 

Is not so difficult to understand?


----------



## gjou

And a free translation of my own for our friends english speaking :

_Because according to the wise Salomon_
_science doesn't enter into a bad willing soul_
_and science without conscience is only soul wrecking_
_You have to serve, love and fear God._
_I only build living stones, and these are men._
_Best is to write laughs than tears, because laughing is particular to the mankind_.


----------



## zaby

gjou said:
			
		

> Yes, perhaps, but this famous quote :
> 
> "Mais parce que, selon le sage Salomon,
> sapience n’entre point en âme malivole,
> et science sans conscience n’est que ruine de l’âme,
> il te convient servir, aimer et craindre Dieu.
> Je ne bâtis que pierres vives, ce sont hommes.
> Mieux est de ris que de larmes écrire Pour ce que rire est le propre de l’homme."
> _*Gargantua*._
> 
> Is not so difficult to understand?


 
This is not the original text. He wrote :

_Mais, parce que selon le saige Salomon_
_sapience n'entre poinct en âme malivole _
_et science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme, _
(Pantagruel)

_Voiant le dueil qui vous mine & consomme,_
_Mieulx est de ris que de larmes escrire,_
_Pour ce que rire est le propre de l'homme._ (Gargantua)​ 
It is understandable yet very different from Moliere's French as Amelesperanza pointed out. Conjugations and spelling have greatly evolved

An other exemple (Pantagruel)
_Pantagruel estudioit fort bien, comme assez entendez, et proufitoit de mesmes, car il avoit l'entendement à double rebras et capacité de memoire à la mesure de douze oyres et botes d'olif._

Honestly, I wouldn't be courageous enough to read Rabelais' books as he wrote them (and that's why I've read them adapted in modern French, as in the lines you quoted  )


----------



## gjou

zaby said:
			
		

> This is not the original text. He wrote :
> 
> _Mais, parce que selon le saige Salomon_
> _sapience n'entre poinct en âme malivole _
> _et science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme, _
> (Pantagruel)
> 
> _Voiant le dueil qui vous mine & consomme,_
> _Mieulx est de ris que de larmes escrire,_
> _Pour ce que rire est le propre de l'homme._ (Gargantua)​
> It is understandable yet very different from Moliere's French as Amelesperanza pointed out. Conjugations and spelling have greatly evolved
> 
> An other exemple (Pantagruel)
> _Pantagruel estudioit fort bien, comme assez entendez, et proufitoit de mesmes, car il avoit l'entendement à double rebras et capacité de memoire à la mesure de douze oyres et botes d'olif._
> 
> Honestly, I wouldn't be courageous enough to read Rabelais' books as he wrote them (and that's why I've read them adapted in modern French, as in the lines you quoted  )


 
Ok you're right,
but what about Du Bellay? 1522-1560
_Heureux qui, comme Ulysse, a fait un beau voyage,
Ou comme cestuy-là qui conquit la toison,
Et puis est retourné, plein d'usage et raison,
Vivre entre ses parents le reste de son âge !
_


----------



## tafanari

gjou said:
			
		

> Hello,
> French language has been stabilized around the 16th or 17th century. Rabelais (1483-1553) and Molière (1622-1663), like Shakespeare I guess, are very easy to understand. Before that, it was old french, not unreadable, but quite difficult to understand.



I don't think the Shakespeare is at all easy to understand. Some parts are, but others are so phonologically, lexically and semantically different that with out footnotes, the modern reader is lost.


----------



## modus.irrealis

I think we should also distinguish between the spoken language and the written language. I doubt that any modern English speaker could have a conversation with Shakespeare, let alone Chaucer, with any real understanding, even if the pronunciation were the only difference. Our modern written language is very conservative, especially in its spelling, and reflects an older version of the language, and plus modern editions of older works often silently normalize the spellings to make it easier to read.

I also agree with Maxiogee about intelligibility. Without looking at notes, I think I can get the gist of what Shakespeare is saying but I'm not sure I could figure out the exact meaning of it, if that makes sense.

The other thing is what do you mean by a "modern reader," especially how much education in/exposure to the older forms of the language are they allowed to have and still be considered a modern reader? Shakespeare certainly isn't lucid on first exposure and only becomes easier with more exposure. I ask because Greek also has a very conservative spelling (to a large extent it corresponds to the pronunciation of the 5th century B.C.) so it's not hard to believe that an educated Greek could quickly learn enough to read say the New Testament in the original Greek (so roughly 2nd century AD). My grandfather can somewhat do this, although he goes to church often and so is exposed to the language, and he's familiar with the Bible so basically he already knows what he's reading and I'm sure that makes it much easier.

Thymios


----------



## vince

I agree about the spoken vs. written language thing.
Up until the 1920's, Chinese was written the same way it was for 2000+ years. So grammar and vocabulary in the modern Chinese languages did not match up with the written word. After the 1920's, the grammatical base for Written Chinese was switched from Classical Chinese to Mandarin. So now the written language is "intelligible" for modern Mandarin speakers, but not for those of other Chinese languages. But the people speaking the other Chinese languages still use the Mandarin-based Written Chinese.

Even for English, Middle English in a way was closer to its written language than today's English. There were almost no silent letters and spelling by and large gave an indication about the word's pronunciation.

I think written Middle English is partially intellible (~70%) to people literate in modern English, while Old English is essentially a foreign language to us, less than 20% intelligibility. Whereas even Old French and Old Spanish are partially intelligible to modern French and Spanish readers.


----------



## Fernando

For Spanish, I would say that any (learned) Spanish speaker could understand:

- From 1700: Virtually all.

- 16th-17th century (Quixote as an example): Some weird words and phrases will not be understood, but only poetry is a real problem.

"En un lugar de la Mancha de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme, no ha (current "hace") mucho tiempo vivía un hidalgo (1) de los de lanza en astillero (2) , adarga (3) antigua y galgo corredor"

(1) No more "hidalgos" but easy to understand.
(2) Uncommon expression
(3) A type of shield. 

In the three cases the problem is that knighthood vocabulary has been lost.

- 14th century: (example: Celestina) It must be read with extreme attention to grasp the meaning, though 90% of text is understood.

-12-13th century (ex: Cantar del Mío Cid): Very difficult to read without knowing some Latin and some context.

- Previous texts (from 1000 AD or so) are very difficult to read.

JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.


----------



## amelesperanza

when I said that I agreed for Moliere but not that much for Rabelais I meant that Rabelais is quite difficult to understand. Molière, for example is always published in its original form, Rabelais, however is often modified or naturalized to an easier french.


----------



## taalewok

I am new to this forum and just poking around, but I stumbled upon this thread and I am surprised no-one has mentioned Icelandic / Norse... If you compare 'modern' Icelandic with 'old' Norse (on a site like 'Icelandic Saga Database', for instance) you will see that the 'modern' language and the old one are still virtually identical. It was, I thought, "common knowledge" that modern Icelanders can still very easily read texts from the 1200 - 1300's with little or no recourse to dictionaries etc.


----------



## killerbee256

Fernando said:


> - Previous texts (from 1000 AD or so) are very difficult to read.


At this point what your trying to read is closer to vulgar or late Latin then Castilian. Do you think knowing related languages like Catalan, Portuguese or even Italian or French helps understand older texts?


----------



## Roel~

This is a part from a Dutch medieval book, Beatrijs:

_Van dichten comt mi cleine bate.
Die leide raden mi dat ict late
ende minen sin niet en vertare.
Maer om die doghet van hare,
Die moeder ende maghet es bleven,
Hebbic een scone mieracle op heven,
Die God sonder twivel toghede
Marien teren, diene soghede.
Ic wille beghinnen van ere nonnen
Een ghedichte. God moet mi onnen
Dat ic die poente moet wel geraken
Ende een goet ende daer af maken
Volcomelijc na der waerheide
Als mi broeder Ghijsbrecht seide,
Een begheven Willemijn.
Hij vant in die boeke sijn._

If I try to read this without a translation, this is what I can understand, after this, let's see what I have correct (I included not only English but Dutch too so that you can compare modern and old Dutch too if Dutch isn't your first language):

_Van dichten comt mi cleine bate._

From near comes my little.......
(Van dichtbij komt mijn kleine ....)

_Die leide raden mi dat ict late_

He advised me to not do it (it's very hard to understand this part.)
Hij adviseerde mij om het te laten..

_ende minen sin niet en vertare._

And to not try to push my will. (vertare, is not a present-day Dutch word, so this sentence doesn't make sense to me.)
en mijn zin niet (door te drijven?) 

_Maer om die doghet van hare,_

Maar vanwege die ..... van haar. (doghede too, isn't present in modern-day Dutch.)
But because of the ...... of her.

_Die moeder ende maghet es bleven,_

Die moeder en maagd (eens?) blijven,
This mother and virgin can stay. (This sentence is actually still quite readable if you realise that 'maghet' is 'maagd' maagd = virgin, in Dutch.)

_Hebbic een scone mieracle op heven,_

Ik heb een mirakel om naar voren te brengen,
I have a nice miracle (magic story) to bring, (Although 'op heven' in this way isn't present in modern Dutch, I can understand what this sentence wants to say because of the rest.)

_Die God sonder twivel toghede
Marien teren, diene soghede.

_Die God zonder twijfel (tot stand bracht?) vanwege Maria, diens ....Which made God without doubt to honor Maria, his .....  (I have no idea what Soghede means.)

_Ic wille beghinnen van ere nonnen
Een ghedichte.

_Ik wil beginnen, afkomstig van eervolle nonnen, een gedicht.
I want to start/begin from glorious nuns a poem._  (Most words are very similar to modern Dutch.)

__God moet mi onnen
Dat ic die poente moet wel geraken
Ende een goet ende daer af maken
Volcomelijc na der waerheide
Als mi broeder Ghijsbrecht seide,
_
God moet mij verzekeren
Dat ik het punt moet bereiken
En een goed einde ervan maak
Volkomen naar de waarheid
Zoals mijn broer Ghijsbrecht zei,God has to assure me,
that I will come to the point 
and I have to make a good ending out of it,
Completely in accordance with the truth,
like my brother Ghijsbrecht said,

_Een begheven Willemijn.

_Een begeven Willemijn.A broken Willemijn.

_Hij vant in die boeke sijn.

_Hij zal vinden het boek zijn.
He will find in the book (the Bible?) that which belongs to him.


Now let's get a translation:

(_Translation by André G. Vanstraelen_)

 1. Van dichten heb ik weinig baat;
 2. men raadt mij aan dat ik het laat,
 3. niet nutteloos mijn geest bezwaar...
 4. Maar om de deugdzaamheid van haar
 5. die Moeder is en Maagd gebleven,
 6. heb 'k dit mirakel opgeschreven
 7. dat zonder twijfel God gedoogde
 8. om Maria te eren, die Hem zoogde.
 9. 'k Wil u vertellen van een non
 10. het mooi verhaal. God geve, ik kon
 11. dit alles schrijven goed en raak;
 12. dat ik voltooie deze taak
 13. geheel en al van leugens vrij,
 14. zo als 't mij broeder Ghijsbrecht zei,
 15. een Wilhelmiet, een vroom asceet,
 16. die 't van uit zijn boeken weet,

English:

1. From near I don't have a lot of advantage;
2. People advice me to not do it,
3. Not useless, the obstacle of my spirit...
4. But because of her virtue
5. Which has stayed mother and Virgin,
6. I have written this mystery/miracle
7. Which God tolerated without doubt
8. To honor Maria, who nursed/suckled Him.
9. I want to tell you about a nun
10. the beautiful story. Because of God, I could
11. write this all, good and right; (I don't know how to translate 'raak', but 'raak' is like: hit the mark)
12. that I will accomplish this thing
13. Completely without lies,
14. Like my brother Ghijsbrecht said,
15. A Wilhelmite, a pious ascetic,
16. who knows from his books,




*Comparing some of the translation with my own translation*:


Begheven meaning ascetic is completely unrecognizable, 'vant in die boeke sijn' meaning 'know from the book' is also unrecognizable. This looks like the modern Dutch: 'van het in het boek zijn', 'from being in the book', but I couldn't even recognize 'vant' as 'van het', I thought it was: 'has found'. This isn't readable for a modern reader.




This part however, is completely recognizable for a modern reader:

_Volcomelijc na der waerheide
Als mi broeder Ghijsbrecht seide,


_The words: 'volkomen', 'waarheid', 'broeder', and 'zei' are still recognizable in these old words: 'Volcomelijc', 'waerheide', 'broeder' and 'seide'.

_God moet mi onnen ==>  Not recognizable. Onnen doesn't look like: 'toestemming geven' or 'toestaan' (give permission/ allow).

__Die God sonder twivel toghede
Marien teren, diene soghede.
_As I know the translation, I can now actually see that '_toghede' looks like the modern: 'toogde', which means: 'to bring up' or 'nurse'. Without translation, I can't read this, but with it, I can recognize this word._ 'soghede' would be the modern word 'zoogde'.
_Die moeder ende maghet es bleven, ==> the word 'es' is problematic, I had no idea what this means. Looking at the translation, 'es' seems to mean: is. But it could have been read as 'if' or 'like' too, by a modern reader.

_It looks a bit like Afrikaans, but in an older version and not comprehensible for a native speaker of Afrikaans.


----------



## Ben Jamin

taalewok said:


> I am new to this forum and just poking around, but I stumbled upon this thread and I am surprised no-one has mentioned Icelandic / Norse... If you compare 'modern' Icelandic with 'old' Norse (on a site like 'Icelandic Saga Database', for instance) you will see that the 'modern' language and the old one are still virtually identical. It was, I thought, "common knowledge" that modern Icelanders can still very easily read texts from the 1200 - 1300's with little or no recourse to dictionaries etc.



At the other end you have Norwegian. The plays of Henrik Ibsen written between 1858 and 1906 are actually too diffcult to read by pupils of secondary schools today. 
For theatrical purposes the language is often adapted to modern ears. Even if you compare informal writing of today  with that of the 1960's you will see very large differences in vocabulary and grammar. This rapid change is mostly due to political changes in education like abandoning of normative language teaching and of teaching literature at schools and abandoning of editing of newspaper texts..


----------



## bazq

Hebrew is divided to 4 eras essentially:
- Biblical Hebrew (no definitive knowledge on the period in which spoken, roughly 1000BC - c. 200BC
- Mishnaic Hebrew (1st century - 4th century, some argue even later)
- Medieval Hebrew (vague term referring to the Hebrew used from the time Mishnaic Hebrew ceased to be spoken, up until the revival of the language in the 18th-19th century.)
- Modern Hebrew (18th/19th century - today)

Texts from all of these periods are intelligible to a Modern Hebrew speaker at varying degrees.
The "Biblical Hebrew" used in the Hebrew Bible is understood quite well, though can be immediately noticed as different from Modern Hebrew.
We usually start with commentary but we abandon it around the age of 13-14. We still need it sometimes to understand complicated or literary verses. Sometimes we think we know what a verse means, but find out we were wrong.
Texts from the Mishnaic period and the Medieval period are noticeably closer to Modern Hebrew in syntax and other aspects, but contain influences of Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Arabic (according to the author's place of origin and time). The morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew is heavily influenced by Aramaic, but we still use several of these morphology patterns in Modern Hebrew.


----------



## asanga

Roel~ said:


> (_Translation by André G. Vanstraelen_)
> 
> 1. Van dichten heb ik weinig baat;
> 2. men raadt mij aan dat ik het laat,
> 3. niet nutteloos mijn geest bezwaar...
> 
> English:
> 
> 1. From near I don't have a lot of advantage;
> 2. People advice me to not do it,
> 3. Not useless, the obstacle of my spirit...



I'm afraid you've misunderstood the modern Dutch. It means:

1. Writing poetry gives me little benefit;
2. People advise me to leave it aside,
3. and not pointlessly burden my soul...



> Begheven meaning ascetic is completely unrecognizable,



_Begeven _is the past participle of the verb _begeven_, meaning "to send [to the monastery]". Compare modern Dutch "zich begeven". Nowadays, you'd say "een toegetreden [broeder] Wilhelmiet". 



> 'vant in die boeke sijn' meaning 'know from the book' is also unrecognizable. This looks like the modern Dutch: 'van het in het boek zijn', 'from being in the book', but I couldn't even recognize 'vant' as 'van het', I thought it was: 'has found'. This isn't readable for a modern reader.



You were right. Vanstraelen's translation preserves the rhyme and meter, so it isn't very literal. _Hij vant in die boeke sijn_ = _Hij vond het in zijn boeken_.  



> _God moet mi onnen ==>  Not recognizable. Onnen doesn't look like: 'toestemming geven' or 'toestaan' (give permission/ allow)._


onnen = gunnen. moet = moge.


> As I know the translation, I can now actually see that '_toghede' looks like the modern: 'toogde', which means: 'to bring up' or 'nurse'. Without translation, I can't read this, but with it, I can recognize this word._



Actually Middle Dutch _togen_ is Modern Dutch _tonen_, although the modern form is descended from another West Germanic dialect.

Using Modern Dutch spelling, with a few clarifying particles and glosses, it's quite readable:

Van dichten comt mi cleine bate.
Van dichten komt mij kleine baat.

Die leide raden mi dat ict late
De lieden raden mij [aan] dat ik het laat

ende minen sin niet en vertare.
en mijn zin [=hart, ziel] [er] niet in verteer.

Maer om die doghet van hare,
Maar om de deugd van haar, 

Die moeder ende maghet es bleven,
Die moeder en maagd is gebleven,

Hebbic een scone mieracle op heven,
Heb ik een schoon mirakel op [=omhoog] geheven,

Die God sonder twivel toghede
Dat God zonder twijvel toonde

Marien teren, diene soghede.
[om] Maria te eren, die hem zoogde.

Ic wille beghinnen van ere nonnen
Ik wil beginnen van [een] eerbare non

Een ghedichte. God moet mi onnen
een gedicht. God moge mij gunnen

Dat ic die poente moet wel geraken
Dat ik het punt wel [=goed] mag raken

Ende een goet ende daer af maken
en een goed einde daar [aan] af [te] maken.

Volcomelijc na der waerheide
Volkomen naar de waarheid

Als mi broeder Ghijsbrecht seide,
zoals mijn broeder Ghijsbrecht zei,

Een begheven Willemijn.
een begeven [=toegetreden] Willemijn.

Hij vant in die boeke sijn.
Hij vond het in zijn boeken.


----------



## fdb

bazq said:


> Texts from all of these periods are intelligible to a Modern Hebrew speaker at varying degrees.



There is a big difference between “language stability” and resurrecting a book-language that had not been used as a spoken vernacular for 2000 years. We need to leave Hebrew out of this discussion.


----------



## origumi

fdb said:


> There is a big difference between “language stability” and resurrecting a book-language that had not been used as a spoken vernacular for 2000 years. We need to leave Hebrew out of this discussion.


Yep, the Israelites could revive the Aramaic language (which was spoken almost as many years as Hebrew), leaving Hebrew alone in its sacrilegious position, and then Israeli Aramaic would have held the world record.

Standard Arabic has some 1400 years of attested stability, spoken in parallel to the local dialects. Is this the longest running of all languages in regard to stability?


----------



## fdb

Again I would maintain that Standard Arabic is not a spoken language, but a liturgical/literary language, like Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese etc. etc.


----------



## tFighterPilot

I think English is also kind of a problemish case, as before the Norman invasion it was pretty much a completely different language, it wasn't a natural evolution.


----------



## francisgranada

killerbee256 said:


> ... Do you think knowing related languages like Catalan, Portuguese or even Italian or French helps understand older texts?


I think yes, but not significantly. 

Here is a Spanish example from around 1000 Anno Domini (it's not not pure Castilian, rather Navarro-Aragonese):

_Cono ayutorio de nuestro dueño dueño Christo, dueño Salbatore, qual dueño yet ena honore e qual dueño__
tienet ela mandacione cono Patre cono Spiritu Sancto, enos siéculos de los sieculos. Facanos Deus omnipotes tal serbicio fere que denante ela sua face gaudiosos seyamus. Amen.
_
In theory, in this text the knowldge of related languages could help us to understand better e.g. the words "fere" (today _hacer_, it. _fare_) and "siéculo" (today _siglo_, it. _secolo_).


----------



## Ben Jamin

francisgranada said:


> I think yes, but not significantly.
> 
> Here is a Spanish example from around 1000 Anno Domini (it's not not pure Castilian, rather Navarro-Aragonese):
> 
> _Cono ayutorio de nuestro dueño dueño Christo, dueño Salbatore, qual dueño yet ena honore e qual dueño__
> tienet ela mandacione cono Patre cono Spiritu Sancto, enos siéculos de los sieculos. Facanos Deus omnipotes tal serbicio fere que denante ela sua face gaudiosos seyamus. Amen.
> _
> In theory, in this text the knowldge of related languages could help us to understand better e.g. the words "fere" (today _hacer_, it. _fare_) and "siéculo" (today _siglo_, it. _secolo_).


There are also words reminding of Portuguese and Italian (facanos / serbicio, -one endings)


----------



## francisgranada

Ben Jamin said:


> There are also words reminding of Portuguese and Italian (facanos / serbicio, -one endings)


 Yes, but these similarities does not always or necessarilly help "too much". 

A propos, also _cono < con o_ reminds the Portuguese (_com o_). But this is due to the Navarro-Aragonese (or mixed?) character of the text, as in the old Castialian I should expect _*con elo _(in the Aragonese the artcles are _o/a_ as in Portuguese).


----------



## Hulalessar

tFighterPilot said:


> I think English is also kind of a problemish case, as before the Norman invasion it was pretty much a completely different language, it wasn't a natural evolution.



One cannot but agree with that, except perhaps to query the word "natural" since it is perfectly natural for languages to borrow and merge to a greater or less degree.

However, it remains a fact that Old English is virtually a foreign language as impenetrable to a native English speaker as, say, Dutch. On the other hand anyone with a good knowledge of French can make at least something (even if not a lot) of the _Chanson de Roland_ and anyone with a good knowledge of Spanish can make something (even if not a lot) of the _Cantar de mio Cid. _Much less "spade work" is needed for someone knowing French or Spanish to understand the earliest stage of French or Spanish than for someone knowing English to understand the earliest stage of English.


----------



## francisgranada

I do agree. Here is a fragment from Cid (I think not too difficult to understand):

_Mio Çid Roy Díaz por Burgos entróve,
En sue compaña sessaenta pendones;
exien lo veer mugieres e varones,
burgeses e burgesas por las finiestras sone,
plorando de los ojos, tanto avien el dolore.
De las sus bocas todos dizían una razóne: ...
_
exir = salir, from _ex + ir
_finiestra = ventana


----------



## Roel~

asanga said:


> I'm afraid you've misunderstood the modern Dutch. It means:
> 
> 1. Writing poetry gives me little benefit;
> 2. People advise me to leave it aside,
> 3. and not pointlessly burden my soul...
> 
> 
> 
> _Begeven _is the past participle of the verb _begeven_, meaning "to send [to the monastery]". Compare modern Dutch "zich begeven". Nowadays, you'd say "een toegetreden [broeder] Wilhelmiet".
> 
> 
> 
> You were right. Vanstraelen's translation preserves the rhyme and meter, so it isn't very literal. _Hij vant in die boeke sijn_ = _Hij vond het in zijn boeken_.
> 
> 
> onnen = gunnen. moet = moge.
> 
> 
> Actually Middle Dutch _togen_ is Modern Dutch _tonen_, although the modern form is descended from another West Germanic dialect.
> 
> Using Modern Dutch spelling, with a few clarifying particles and glosses, it's quite readable:
> 
> Van dichten comt mi cleine bate.
> Van dichten komt mij kleine baat.
> 
> Die leide raden mi dat ict late
> De lieden raden mij [aan] dat ik het laat
> 
> ende minen sin niet en vertare.
> en mijn zin [=hart, ziel] [er] niet in verteer.
> 
> Maer om die doghet van hare,
> Maar om de deugd van haar,
> 
> Die moeder ende maghet es bleven,
> Die moeder en maagd is gebleven,
> 
> Hebbic een scone mieracle op heven,
> Heb ik een schoon mirakel op [=omhoog] geheven,
> 
> Die God sonder twivel toghede
> Dat God zonder twijvel toonde
> 
> Marien teren, diene soghede.
> [om] Maria te eren, die hem zoogde.
> 
> Ic wille beghinnen van ere nonnen
> Ik wil beginnen van [een] eerbare non
> 
> Een ghedichte. God moet mi onnen
> een gedicht. God moge mij gunnen
> 
> Dat ic die poente moet wel geraken
> Dat ik het punt wel [=goed] mag raken
> 
> Ende een goet ende daer af maken
> en een goed einde daar [aan] af [te] maken.
> 
> Volcomelijc na der waerheide
> Volkomen naar de waarheid
> 
> Als mi broeder Ghijsbrecht seide,
> zoals mijn broeder Ghijsbrecht zei,
> 
> Een begheven Willemijn.
> een begeven [=toegetreden] Willemijn.
> 
> Hij vant in die boeke sijn.
> Hij vond het in zijn boeken.



Do you have Dutch as your native language too? You seem to understand this text better than me.
I tried to read it without translation, but sometimes I have problems with the interpretation of a text, as you see, and some words are only recognizable for me when you explain them. I think it depends on who the modern reader is too, somebody with a lot of linguistical knowledge will be better able to read it than a complete layman.


----------



## Roel~

Hulalessar said:


> One cannot but agree with that, except perhaps to query the word "natural" since it is perfectly natural for languages to borrow and merge to a greater or less degree.
> 
> However, it remains a fact that Old English is virtually a foreign language as impenetrable to a native English speaker as, say, Dutch. On the other hand anyone with a good knowledge of French can make at least something (even if not a lot) of the _Chanson de Roland_ and anyone with a good knowledge of Spanish can make something (even if not a lot) of the _Cantar de mio Cid. _Much less "spade work" is needed for someone knowing French or Spanish to understand the earliest stage of French or Spanish than for someone knowing English to understand the earliest stage of English.



I wonder if the development of the English language to adopting so much elements from Romanic languages can be compared to the Romanian language which actually quite lately adopted a lot of words from the French language and other Romanic languages. I know that Romania was romanized by the romans, but because of their isolated state I wonder in how far the Romanian language was really a Romanic language in the medieval ages. I read though that it doesn't have a lot of Slavic influences. 

It is politically dependent too actually.... the Maltese language was first considered a Romanic language, but nowadays it is considered as a Semitic language, actually the only semitic language which is a national language spoken in Europe. Sometimes it's really difficult to categorize a language if it adopted a lot of elements from another group or if it is a real mix. I think the politics often decide too. I can see why the British never wanted to categorize themselves as Romanic, because in their origin they were a bunch of Germanic tribes.


----------



## tFighterPilot

Romanian Grammar is Romance, the Slavic influence only came later and mostly just added more words (much like Norman words in English). In some ways, it's even closer to classical Latin than the western Romance languages.


----------



## Ihsiin

origumi said:


> Yep, the Israelites could revive the Aramaic language (which was spoken almost as many years as Hebrew), leaving Hebrew alone in its sacrilegious position, and then Israeli Aramaic would have held the world record.



Except, of course, Aramaic continues to be a living language, so revival would have been unnecessary.


----------



## origumi

Ihsiin said:


> Except, of course, Aramaic continues to be a living language, so revival would have been unnecessary.


For Jews "Aramaic" is the one spoken about 1500-2000 ago, totally different of the living neo-Aramaic dialects. There were of course Jewish neo-Aramaic speaking communities but they are irrelevant to such process.


----------



## Hulalessar

origumi said:


> Standard Arabic has some 1400 years of attested stability, spoken in parallel to the local dialects. Is this the longest running of all languages in regard to stability?



I think Latin beats it. If we start with Classical Latin, Latin was in continuous use from around 75 B.C. until roughly 1700 when it started to fall out of favour. If we add Old Latin at the beginning and Church Latin at the end that extends the period.

It is also possible to make out cases for Sumerian, Egyptian and Sanskrit.

The problem is of course that you have to decide whether the variety in use at the beginning of the period you choose is sufficiently similar to the variety at the end of that period to justify an assertion that it shows "stability". I know very little about Arabic, but clearly the language of early literature cannot be _exactly _the same as that used in a modern newspaper when discussing traffic problems in Cairo.


----------



## Perseas

The epic poem "Διγενής Ακρίτας" (Digenis Akritas) is considered to be the first written monument of the early *Modern Greek* literature. It was written in early demotic Greek in ~1000 AD and was further developed in the 12th century.  An average Greek can understand almost everything in this poem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digenes_Akritas


----------



## killerbee256

francisgranada said:


> I think yes, but not significantly.
> _Cono ayutorio de nuestro dueño dueño Christo, dueño Salbatore, qual dueño yet ena honore e qual dueño__
> tienet ela mandacione cono Patre cono Spiritu Sancto, enos siéculos de los sieculos. Facanos Deus omnipotes tal serbicio fere que denante ela sua face gaudiosos seyamus. Amen.
> _
> In theory, in this text the knowldge of related languages could help us to understand better e.g. the words "fere" (today _hacer_, it. _fare_) and "siéculo" (today _siglo_, it. _secolo_).


 I can read most of that, enough to see it's a religious text. _Siéculo_ is almost Identical to modern Portuguese, _seculo _and _ie_ where portugues has _e _is common between the two languages. Granted this is quite common as Portuguese's (formal) writting system is some what archic, many portuguese words resimble the old spanish forms more then the modern spanish.


origumi said:


> Standard Arabic has some 1400 years of attested  stability, spoken in parallel to the local dialects. Is this the longest  running of all languages in regard to stability?


I'd argue with you on that, the local "dialects" are just as diverged from classical Arabic and each other as Latin and the Romance languages. Islam however creates a cultural unity, tellingly the one dialect seperated from Islam is considered an independent language.


----------



## apmoy70

Perseas said:


> The epic poem "Διγενής Ακρίτας" (Digenis Akritas) is considered to be the first written monument of the early *Modern Greek* literature. It was written in early demotic Greek in ~1000 AD and was further developed in the 12th century.  An average Greek can understand almost everything in this poem.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digenes_Akritas



From the epic poem _Digenis Akritas_, Perseas has posted:

Verse 32:
10th c. Demotic (i.e. vernacular) Greek
Εὐθύς ἐκαβαλίκευσαν, 'ς τὸν κάμπον κατεβαίνουν
Latin transliteration:
Ephthýs ekavalíkephsan, 's tòn kámpon katevénoun
English translation (literal):
At once they mounted, to the battlefield they descend

Modern (vernacular) Greek
Ευθύς καβαλικέψανε, στον κάμπο κατεβαίνουν
Latin transliteration:
Efthís kavaliképsane, ston kámbo katevénoun
English translation (literal):
At once they mounted, to the battlefield they descend

My clumpsy attempt for Koine Greek
Ἰθύς ἐφιππεύσαντες, πρὸς τὸ πεδίον ἀπίασι
Itʰús ĕpʰĭppeúsantĕs, pròs tò pĕdíŏn ăpíasĭ 
English translation (literal):
 At once having mounted, to the battlefield they go


----------



## Sempervirens

. said:


> I wish to know about the stability of languages.
> 
> English from the time of Chaucer is intelligible to a modern reader and Shakespeare is lucid.
> 
> How far back is your language discernable to a modern reader?
> 
> .,,



Io come persona di modesta cultura non incontro particolari difficoltà nella lettura e comprensione della _Divina Commedia, XIII secolo,_ o del _Cantico di Frate Sole_ del XII secolo. 

Quello che viene chiamato _Indovinello veronese, _datato tra il VII e il IX, un misto di volgare e latino, potrebbe forse impegnare quei parlanti che hanno pochissime basi di latino.

Credo che sbaglierei di poco nel dire che l'italiano di otto o nove secoli fa rimane a tutt'oggi ancora leggibile e comprensibile alla maggior parte degli Italiani miei contemporanei.


----------



## francisgranada

The language of the Indovinello veronese (Veronese riddle) is hard to classify, as it is neither Latin nor does it correspond to the supposed vernacular spoken in Veneto in the 9th century. The proper document that containts the Indovinello originates in Spain (probably in Toledo). It is supposed that the riddle was written on the margin of the document later by a monk in Italy (Veneto). 

_Se pareba boves
alba pratalia araba
et albo versorio teneba
et negro semen seminaba

_From the point of view of the comprehensibility, I think, a Spanish speaking person could understand it as well as an Italian (if not even more easily: boves - sp. bueyes, it. buoi; negro semen - sp. negro semen; it. nero seme, araba - sp. araba, it. arava).


----------



## francisgranada

Hungarian.

I think the main problem with reading the oldest Hungarian texts (from the 11th century) consists on the lack of the diacritical signs (and exact orthographical rules in general) e.g. ü,ö,ó,ú,ő,ű,á,é, as omitting them may totally change the meaning of the words. Otherwise they are understandable to a relatively high degree. 

Later texts, let's say from the 15th-16th century are almost normally readable and understandable.


----------



## olaszinho

Hi Francis.

Could you please tell me the main differences in morphology and syntax between contemporary and ancient Hungarian. Did old Hungarian have more or fewer verb tenses, for instance? What about the "cases"? As for vocabulary, did Hungarian use so many Slavonic loans in the 11th century?


----------



## francisgranada

Szia Olaszinho.

 I have answered your question in a new thread, the "History of Hungarian".


----------



## Sempervirens

Ciao, Francis! Infatti! Chi ha poche basi di latino , chi non ne ha ( non soltanto gli Italiani quindi) difficilmente potrà comprenderne appieno il contenuto.

P.S Scusami ma non ho capito bene se, menzionando tu stesso la parola _language (of the indovinello veronese),_ ti riferisci alla lingua di quel tempo o al linguaggio usato nel siffatto documento? Non per togliere meriti ad una lingua prestigiosa e ricchissima di vocaboli come quella inglese ma sono talmente affezionato a questa lista di termini (distinti) ;lingua; linguaggio; _parole;__langue;_idioma_;_ parlata; che il troppo polisemico _language _mi confonde le idee, visto appunto il contesto.

Francis, il latino _boves _è altresì reso in italiano con il vocabolo bove. Non abbiamo *bov*aro e carne *bov*ina in italiano? Nell'Indovinello no, non vedo particolari e numericamente consistenti spunti per affermarne vantaggi nella comprensione da parte di parlanti spagnoli nei confronti di quelli italiani (includendo i Veronesi). Ma posso anche sbagliarmi. 

köszönöm!

S.V


----------



## francisgranada

Sempervirens said:


> ...  non ho capito bene se, menzionando tu stesso la parola _language (of the indovinello veronese),_ ti riferisci alla lingua di quel tempo o al linguaggio usato nel siffatto documento?


Volevo dire questo: il linguaggio del indovinello veronese non è indentificabile né come lingua latina né come una lingua (regionale, vernacolare) allora parlata nel Veneto, a differenza p.e. dei "placiti cassinesi" che presentano indubbiamente un volgare italo-romanzo. 


> Francis, il latino _boves _è altresì reso in italiano con il vocabolo bove. Non abbiamo *bov*aro e carne *bov*ina in italiano?


Sì, ma bovino esiste anche in spagnolo. Io mi riferivo al plurale in -_es _(non a_ bov_-), un tale plurale non poteva esistere nel volgare parlato nel Veneto (secondo me). Se invece avessimo per esempio "_Se pareva bovi .... negro seme seminava", _allora il carattere italo-romanzo del testo sarebbe convincente ...                                

Il problema è che il testo è troppo breve e isolato da analizzare. In teoria si potrebbe trattare anche solo di un "gioco" da parte dell'autore e non di una lingua/linguaggio davvero esistente o usato.     



> köszönöm!


Szívesen


----------



## Sempervirens

Adesso ho capito meglio, Francis.  Sai, qui si parte a scoppio ritardato. 

szia!


----------



## franknagy

http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ómagyar_Mária-siralom

Here is a passage of a Hungarian verse from the 13th century "Mary is mourning Jesus".
Its spelling is strange because the presently used vowel and consonant symbors were not used.
There are some exticts words but the essence is understandable.



*Original spelling:*
*Modern spelling:*
*Translated to present Hungarian*
 Volek Syrolm thudothlon
Syrolmol Sepedyk.
buol ozuk epedek

 Volék sirolm tudotlon.
Sirolmol sepedik,
Búol oszuk, epedek.

 Valék siralom tudatlan,
Most siralom sebez,
Bú gyötör, epeszt.



Regards
    Frank

P. S.

Is there a reader from Rumania? Can he/she read 250 year old Rumanian texts written by Cyrillic letters?

F.


----------



## franknagy

olaszinho said:


> As for vocabulary, did Hungarian use so many Slavonic loans in the 11th century?



Consider the fact that Slavonic were servants making the agricultural works but more and  more hUngarians declassed and had to do it instead of adventures to Western Europe. Look after the Russian word _мука_ and the Hungarian word _munka_.

Regards 
  Frank


----------



## Walshie79

You can find reasonably intelligible English texts pre-Chaucer, and largely unintelligible texts of roughly the same time. With Middle English, a hell of a lot depends on the dialect. 

The _Peterborough Chronicle _and _​Ormulum_, for example, both mid-12C, are just about comprehensible, with effort, to a reasonably educated modern speaker- once they get used to the spelling. These are in East-Midland dialects which have already lost most of the inflections of Old English. 

_​Layamon's Brut_ (West Midland, c.1200) and ​ ​_Ayenbite __of Inwit _(Kent, 1340s) are a completely different proposition, the former being basically Old English complete with archaic vocabulary and pretty much the full OE inflection system, the latter is not readily comprehensible despite being written about the time Chaucer was born (the pilgrims must have had some difficulty understanding people in Canterbury, if that text is an accurate representation of Kentish speech!).


----------



## francisgranada

franknagy said:


> *Original spelling:*
> *Modern spelling:*
> *Translated to present Hungarian*
> Volek Syrolm thudothlon
> Syrolmol Sepedyk.
> buol ozuk epedek
> 
> Volék sirolm tudotlon.
> Sirolmol sepedik,
> Búol oszuk, epedek.
> 
> Valék siralom tudatlan,
> Most siralom sebez,
> Bú gyötör, epeszt.


I think this is not the best "translation" to present Hungarian because  it suggests as if e.g. "_Búol oszuk, epedek_" would have changed during the centuries to "_Bú gyötör, epeszt_", which is not true, of course. Here is a _literal _translation that demonstrates better the differences:

_Volék sirolm-tudotlon = Valék siralom-tudatlan_
_Sirolmol sepedek = Siralommal sepedek [szepegek]_
_Búol oszuk, epedek = Búval aszok, epedek._


----------



## irinet

franknagy said:


> http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ómagyar_Mária-siralom
> 
> Here is a passage of a Hungarian verse from the 13th century "Mary is mourning Jesus".
> Its spelling is strange because the presently used vowel and consonant symbors were not used.
> There are some exticts words but the essence is understandable.
> 
> 
> 
> *Original spelling:*
> *Modern spelling:*
> *Translated to present Hungarian*
> Volek Syrolm thudothlon
> Syrolmol Sepedyk.
> buol ozuk epedek
> 
> Volék sirolm tudotlon.
> Sirolmol sepedik,
> Búol oszuk, epedek.
> 
> Valék siralom tudatlan,
> Most siralom sebez,
> Bú gyötör, epeszt.
> 
> 
> 
> P. S.
> 
> Is there a reader from Rumania? Can he/she read 250 year old Rumanian texts written by Cyrillic letters?
> 
> F.



No, I cannot read a Cyrillic text unless I had some knowledge about slavic languages. This happened 7 centuries ago, and it was linked to the Orthodoxy Church. A priest would know, for that matter.


----------



## franknagy

[QUOTE Irinet]No, I cannot read a Cyrillic text unless I had some knowledge about  slavic languages. This happened 7 centuries ago, and it was linked to  the Orthodoxy Church. A priest would know, for that matter.[/QUOTE]

No. *The Romanians ceased to use the Cyrillic characters only in 1860 in order to strengthen their self-esteem as Latin origin*. Earlier they were writing civilian i. e. not only religious texts with their own modified Cyrillic alphabet.
By the way, the Romanian inhabitants of Bessarabia, which was part of the Russian empire from 1812-1918, and from 1940 to 1991, used to write with Cyrillic alphabet (different from the old one).
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Román_cirill_ábécé

Regards
   Frank


----------



## francisgranada

Here is a part of the so called _Scrisoarea lui Neacşu_ from 1521(a phonetical transcription of a letter written in Rumanian):

_ ... i pak dau štire domnïetale za lukrul turčilor kum amĭ, auzit èu kŭ ĩpŭratul au èšit den sofïę ši aimintrě nue ši sěu dus ĩ sus,  pre dunŭre i pak sŭ štïi domnïjata kŭ au venit un ωm de la nikopoe de mïe měu,  spus kŭ au vŭzut ku ωkïi loi kŭ au trekut čěle korabïi če štïi ši domnïjata prè,  dunŭre ĩ sus i pak sŭ štïi kŭ bagŭ den tote ωrašele kŭte [50] de ωmin sŭ ę   fïe ĩn ažutor ĩ korabïi i pak sŭ štïi kumu sěu prinsŭ nešte meššter den cari, grad kum vorĭ trěče ačěle korabïi la lokul čela strimtul če šttïi ši domnïjata, i pak spui domnïetale de lukrul lu mahamet beg kumu amĭ auzit de boęri če sŭntĭ medžïjaš, ši de dženere mïu negre kumu ęu dat ĩpŭratul slobozïe lu mahamet beg pre iωi va, fi voę pren cěra rumŭněskŭ jarŭ èlĭ sŭ trěkŭ i pak sŭ štïi domnïjata kŭ are ... 

_Can it be understood knowing only the modern Rumanian?


----------



## irinet

Partly yes, the text can be read.
I said 7 centuries ago because it was the XIV
century when it was brought to us for both political and religious (Orthodox) reasons.
And the change to Latin represented again a political reason, as usual.
The Bassarabian population (also Romanians) still preserved the Cyrillic alphabet since they were under the Russian dominance.
This is my opinion.


----------



## francisgranada

irinet said:


> Partly yes, the text can be read ...


 Thank you. As this thread is about the _language stability_ (and not about the _orthography _or _alphabet _etc.) I was curious about the "understandability" of the oldest known text written in Rumanian (as far as I know), i.e. a text written almost 500 years ago! 

 I am aware that this transcription is artificial and it absolutely does not correspond to the Rumanian orthography, however I'd like to ask, which words or grammatical constructions/forms etc. cannot be understood at all or have notably changed?


----------



## irinet

At a first glance, I cannot understand 2 words from the very beginning of the text provided that seem to repeat constantly with the lines of the letter: "i pak". I could have a contextual guess (interpretation) that 'pak' is 'pot' (the English vb. 'can').


----------



## francisgranada

irinet said:


> ... "i pak". Is 'i' the modern personal pronoun, 'eu'?!


I don't speak Rumanian, but no. The Rumanian "eu" is a clear continuation of the Latin "ego", so it is very improbable that 500 years ago "eu" would have had the form "i". I think "i pak" is a Slavic expression meaning something like "and then", but this is only my personal intuition.


----------



## irinet

Here is a part of the so called _Scrisoarea lui Neacşu_ from 1521(a phonetical transcription:
... "mahamet beg kumu amĭ auzit de boęri če sŭntĭ *medžïjaš*, ši de *dženere* mïu negre kumu ęu dat ĩpŭratul slobozïe lu mahamet *beg* pre *iωi* va, fi voę pren cěra rumŭněskŭ *jarŭ èlĭ *sŭ trěkŭ i pak *sŭ* štïi domnïjata kŭ are ..."
I know about 'ego' I have corrected myself.
Now, the words in bold are incomprehensible to me.


----------



## irinet

'Beg' i cannot understand and 'ipuratul'.
Your intuitive interpretation about 'i pak' sounds plausible to me. 
In point of other forms, I could observe that '*cera* rumunesku' refers to 2 modern  words 'ce (pron.) + era (vb.)'.
'Su' and 'cu' seem to be the Romanian conjunctions 's*ă*' and 'c*ă*'.


----------



## francisgranada

irinet said:


> 'Beg' i cannot understand and 'ipuratul'


"Beg" is a title originally applied to the leaders of Turkic (tribal) groups. This word is usually not translated to any language (e.g. in Hungarian it is "bég").                                      

As to "ipuratul", I have no idea ... (-ul is an article, I suppose)


----------



## irinet

I would say that 'ipuratul slobozie' might be 'the devil at loose' (Necuratul slobod), but I am not convinced. If you are particularly interested in this text, I could check into the books I have.


----------



## bibax

The Slavic "i pak" is an equivalent to the Latin word "item" used also in English where it began its life (before 1398) as an adverb meaning "moreover, also, in addition". Item was typically used in front of each object listed in an inventory, as we might put also. It also served as a text separator.

It is a paradox that the old Czech (i.e. Slavic) texts used the Latin "item" whereas Romanian (a Romance language) used the Slavic expression "i pak". It seems that Latin was not a common language in medieval Romania (maybe except Transylvania that was under the Hungarian rule).


----------



## Rethliopuks

Texts from Ancient Chinese can still be lucid (not vernacular of course) even though some can be from 2,500+ years ago. Of course if people used obsolete & completely not used words/meanings those parts could be unrecognizable.


----------



## fdb

Yes, but this is evidence for stability of the writing system, not stability of the language. If someone read these texts out in Old Chinese nobody would understand anything.


----------



## fdb

bibax said:


> It is a paradox that the old Czech (i.e. Slavic) texts used the Latin "item" whereas Romanian (a Romance language) used the Slavic expression "i pak". It seems that Latin was not a common language in medieval Romania (maybe except Transylvania that was under the Hungarian rule).



This is because Bohemia was/is a Catholic country (and thus used Latin), while Romania was/is an Orthodox country.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

franknagy said:


> Consider the fact that Slavonic were servants making the agricultural works but more and  more hUngarians declassed and had to do it instead of adventures to Western Europe. Look after the Russian word _мука_ and the Hungarian word _munka_.
> 
> Regards
> Frank



Do you mean мУка or мукА or both?


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

zaby said:


> This is not the original text. He wrote :
> 
> _Mais, parce que selon le saige Salomon_
> _sapience n'entre poinct en âme malivole _
> _et science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme, _
> (Pantagruel)
> 
> _Voiant le dueil qui vous mine & consomme,_
> _Mieulx est de ris que de larmes escrire,_
> _Pour ce que rire est le propre de l'homme._ (Gargantua)​
> It is understandable yet very different from Moliere's French as Amelesperanza pointed out. Conjugations and spelling have greatly evolved
> 
> An other exemple (Pantagruel)
> _Pantagruel estudioit fort bien, comme assez entendez, et proufitoit de mesmes, car il avoit l'entendement à double rebras et capacité de memoire à la mesure de douze oyres et botes d'olif._
> 
> Honestly, I wouldn't be courageous enough to read Rabelais' books as he wrote them (and that's why I've read them adapted in modern French, as in the lines you quoted  )


I find the Rabelais quotaions quite easy to understand, the only words I cannot understand being oyres & olif (olives? olive oil?).
Maybe an unmodernised edition with some annotations would do for me.


----------



## bearded

Talking about the stability of languages, there are very 'stable' languages (e.g. Italian) and quickly changing ones (e.g. English).  In my opinion, this fact depends on a large extent on historical and political reasons and events in the relevant Country, like old or recent invasions, cultural influence of new-dominating classes, etc.  so that each language has eventually developed a particular 'changing speed' on the basis of its history, i.e. a sort of 'trend' which is internal to every language.  But I would like to read other opinion on this subject.


----------



## ancalimon

francisgranada said:


> "Beg" is a title originally applied to the leaders of Turkic (tribal) groups. This word is usually not translated to any language (e.g. in Hungarian it is "bég").
> 
> As to "ipuratul", I have no idea ... (-ul is an article, I suppose)



Beg has other variants like bek, bey, beğ, bak, bay. In old Turkic, it meant wealthy, rich. Before that, it roughly meant "deity" (power that bids God's will) and this title was applied to names of deities.  For example "Bay Ülgen". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai-Ulgan

My own guess is that this title was also given to leaders because it was thought that leaders also did what God willed them to do. This was probably due to influence from PIE culture.
It was thought that they received something called "kut" (some kind blessing which made them slaves of people. I know it makes little sense to today's understanding of what a slave is) from God and that made them leaders.

PS: Almost all references to old Turkic religion you can find are false. There was a distinction between Tengri (God) and deities. Deities are equivalents of angels.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

"Deity" or "God" in Russian is Бог (Bog), in other Slavic languages the word is similar.


----------



## traveling cloud

> "mahamet beg kumu amĭ auzit de boęri če sŭntĭ *medžïjaš*, ši de *dženere* mïu negre kumu ęu dat ĩpŭratul slobozïe lu mahamet *beg* pre *iωi* va, fi voę pren cěra rumŭněskŭ *jarŭ èlĭ *sŭ trěkŭ i pak *sŭ* štïi domnïjata kŭ are ..."
> 
> 'Beg' i cannot understand and 'ipuratul'.


- _medžïjaš_ = megieş - free peasant (ţăran liber/slobod) < Hungarian _megyés_
- _de dženere_ = de genere - usually
- _ĩpŭratul_ = împăratul - the emperor < Lat. _imperātor_


----------



## franknagy

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Do you mean мУка or мукА or both?


The Hungarian word came from a Slavonic language which had nasals, and *obviously not from мукА meaning flour but from мУка meaning torment*.
As one of my math teachers told: _"The laziness drives ahead the world."_

The Hungarian word meaning flour is _liszt_. I am sure that this word did not come from the Russian word лист.


----------



## Ben Jamin

franknagy said:


> The Hungarian word came from a Slavonic language which had nasals, and *obviously not from мукА meaning flour but from мУка meaning torment*.
> As one of my math teachers told: _"The laziness drives ahead the world."_
> 
> The Hungarian word meaning flour is _liszt_. I am sure that this word did not come from the Russian word лист.


So the name of composer Franz Liszt means "flour"?


----------



## francisgranada

Ben Jamin said:


> So the name of composer Franz Liszt means "flour"?


Yes , but whether this is also the etymology of his name is another question, as the origin of family names is not always so "straightforward".


----------

