re: language/culture

[fsquared]

I have a textbook of Old English and kind of wanted to read it but, you know, the usual time/energy constraints... I think understanding of a Germanic language helps a lot in learning Old English. I'm surprised your English prof didn't understand it at least a little though; I would presume that at least one course would be compulsory.

[French Fan]

Originally Posted by garçoncanadien

and now? English is slipping quickly into French mainstream language. Now it is common to say:

j'y go
TV
l'ex-star acadamicien
scotcher
nana

hehe French Fan and Bigdan could go on and on about this xD
i don't like the Englishization of my other 1st language

Yes you're right
"J'y go" is common here as "je vais checker mes mails" (to check) and there are more and more others...

[Youpidou1]

Originally Posted by lefty12357

Her are a few I see used in English all the time:

c'est la vie
coup de grâce
coup d'état
tête-à-tête
déjà vu

Yeah I hear alot of those word used too, but what made English speakers use it? Could it have been that when the revolutionary war came about, since America and France were allies that we would use alot of their words to comprehend what was being said? And could it have been passed down for centuries and it is us using it now? I wonder...

[Cooney]

The way collegiate English language seems to be taught these days is through translations of books from the times in question. Sure, you read Beowulf, but you read the translation, not the Old English. I don't think there was a single class at the university that touched on the paleography of it. The words are so different, that the sounds themselves would be meaningless to us, even if perfectly phonetically transcribed.


Middle English, such as Chaucer, was not actually written in an alphabet we could understand either, but rather in an alphabet of the time. While no longer requiring a translation, it is still a phonetic transcription we're all most familiar with.

To telle yow al the condicioun,
Of ech of hem, so as it semed me,
And whiche they weren, and of what degree,
And eek in what array that they were inne,
And at a knyght than wol I first bigynne.

That's a transliteration of what he wrote. He didn't actually write in the modern latin alphabet. While we couldn't read it off the page, once we get the phonetics of it, it makes sense. If I read that passage out loud, I daresay 99% of native English speakers would understand it.


Modern English (Shakespeare et al) actually came about a bit before modern writing did. Shakespeare was familiar with, and used, both the old style, and new style. Reading his stuff, or anything earlier, in the original, would require varying amounts of effort, up to and including years of training. Transliterated though, and we have no issue whatsoever.

----Note----
Hopefully I got all my trans- words right in there!

Transcribe: To take something from speech to text, in its original language
Transliterate: To take something from one writing system to another, while maintaining the sounds
Translate: To change the language completely, including changing sounds as needed.

[Killian]

Last time, I was in Paris, I was watching the Usa take on South Africa in the Rugby World Cup in a bar, there was a French who she was talking to her friends, and some guy who was trying to pick her up. She seemed to use many American phrases, paticularly Oh My God. I don't know if this was just her, or if many French people use these phrases.

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by Cooney

The way collegiate English language seems to be taught these days is through translations of books from the times in question. Sure, you read Beowulf, but you read the translation, not the Old English. I don't think there was a single class at the university that touched on the paleography of it. The words are so different, that the sounds themselves would be meaningless to us, even if perfectly phonetically transcribed.


Middle English, such as Chaucer, was not actually written in an alphabet we could understand either, but rather in an alphabet of the time. While no longer requiring a translation, it is still a phonetic transcription we're all most familiar with.

To telle yow al the condicioun,
Of ech of hem, so as it semed me,
And whiche they weren, and of what degree,
And eek in what array that they were inne,
And at a knyght than wol I first bigynne.

That's a transliteration of what he wrote. He didn't actually write in the modern latin alphabet. While we couldn't read it off the page, once we get the phonetics of it, it makes sense. If I read that passage out loud, I daresay 99% of native English speakers would understand it.


Modern English (Shakespeare et al) actually came about a bit before modern writing did. Shakespeare was familiar with, and used, both the old style, and new style. Reading his stuff, or anything earlier, in the original, would require varying amounts of effort, up to and including years of training. Transliterated though, and we have no issue whatsoever.

----Note----
Hopefully I got all my trans- words right in there!

Transcribe: To take something from speech to text, in its original language
Transliterate: To take something from one writing system to another, while maintaining the sounds
Translate: To change the language completely, including changing sounds as needed.

Cool, I didn't know about Chaucer's original script. Now, is it really a different "alphabet", or just a different "script"/"font"?
Here's a link to an old Chaucer manuscript:

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/...er/chaucer.htm

[Youpidou1]

Originally Posted by Cooney

The way collegiate English language seems to be taught these days is through translations of books from the times in question. Sure, you read Beowulf, but you read the translation, not the Old English. I don't think there was a single class at the university that touched on the paleography of it. The words are so different, that the sounds themselves would be meaningless to us, even if perfectly phonetically transcribed.


Middle English, such as Chaucer, was not actually written in an alphabet we could understand either, but rather in an alphabet of the time. While no longer requiring a translation, it is still a phonetic transcription we're all most familiar with.

To telle yow al the condicioun,
Of ech of hem, so as it semed me,
And whiche they weren, and of what degree,
And eek in what array that they were inne,
And at a knyght than wol I first bigynne.

That's a transliteration of what he wrote. He didn't actually write in the modern latin alphabet. While we couldn't read it off the page, once we get the phonetics of it, it makes sense. If I read that passage out loud, I daresay 99% of native English speakers would understand it.


Modern English (Shakespeare et al) actually came about a bit before modern writing did. Shakespeare was familiar with, and used, both the old style, and new style. Reading his stuff, or anything earlier, in the original, would require varying amounts of effort, up to and including years of training. Transliterated though, and we have no issue whatsoever.

----Note----
Hopefully I got all my trans- words right in there!

Transcribe: To take something from speech to text, in its original language
Transliterate: To take something from one writing system to another, while maintaining the sounds
Translate: To change the language completely, including changing sounds as needed.

Very well said.

[Edcognito]

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

Hey, I agree completely, Ed, but I predict you're going to suffer some flak . . . and in the end, the thread will be locked.

Darn - they saw through my transparent attempt at a thread Hijack and ignored me completly!

I'll be more serious from now on!

(I promis!)


Ed

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by Edcognito

Darn - they saw through my transparent attempt at a thread Hijack and ignored me completly!

I'll be more serious from now on!

(I promis!)


Ed

Sorry Ed, you're dealing with very experienced "thread hijack" masters here. We can get as good as we give

[Cooney]

Originally Posted by fsquared

Cool, I didn't know about Chaucer's original script. Now, is it really a different "alphabet", or just a different "script"/"font"?
Here's a link to an old Chaucer manuscript:

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/...er/chaucer.htm

Well... depends on how you mean that. After all, what is an alphabet, if not simply a font or script used to visually represent sounds? Cyrillic and Latin letters may share sounds, and have only their shape be different. What does that count as? I'd call them different alphabets, myself.

I haven't studied Chaucer's writing, and don't want to make pronouncements about it - I remain ignorant of the particulars of how it is written. With Shakespeare, however, I can be more precise. The sounds are the same, but it's is genuinely a different alphabet. The letters are shaped differently, and some represent sounds or combinations that no longer exist. There were three primary writing styles I know of floating around England at the time of Shakespeare - Secretary Hand, Italian Hand, and Modern Round Hand.

Modern Round Hand is pretty much what we use today. Provided a clear enough text, anybody who can read cursive would be able to read it.

Secretary Hand was the old form. While it is distinctly related to our modern hand, the vast majority of people really couldn't read a darn bit of it, no matter how clearly the text is written. Too many of the letters simply aren't shaped the same.

Italian Hand was a sort of Italicized printing, using modern letters, most likely the easiest of the three for we modern folks to read.

-------------------

Here is an example of each handwriting type, all from around the same time period (late 1500's, early 1600's).

Secretary Script:


Modern Round Hand:


Italian Hand:


As you can see, the first is pretty much unreadable, the second is basically what we use today, and the third is an easy to read printing. Pretty much just spelling issues with the last couple, any maybe the odd abbreviation we're no longer familiar with (Lpp = ladyship, for example)