ceigered:

jan aleksan:
o mai gode! Frensh pipol ar kurenteli divilopingue eu GNU! ouate eu mèsse!

eu GNU? ouate du yu mien bai GNU?

eu fri softouère (ouele, ine zisse ekzample, ite ize eu fri langouadje zate ize divilopède bai sévérale pipole), laike Lineukse

Now I wondering if we are allowed to write like this in this english-only forum. ^^"

I recently read a book about Shakespeare's language, which is in the same time frame of English's development as that Bible, aka Early Modern English. Of course, Shakespeare definitely set himself apart from the average speaker. Still, his plays do offer insight into EM English, especially since he wrote in so many different styles to convey different characters. It was a very interesting stage in the development of English.

But was it easier than today's English? Eh, hard to say. Well, there were a lot less words and idioms in those days, so that would make it easier -- especially for people learning as a second language. The grammar hasn't changed dramatically, so that's not a factor. Overall, I don't think they differ significantly in difficulty, but that's a tough question to ever answer definitively.

ceigered:And unfortunately I have Mac so I can't run e-sword But thanks for the link, that will no doubt be useful for any wishing to follow up some of the discussions on this thread. I myself, from a linguistic perspective, wouldn't get the modern-spelling version simply because it doesn't have the historical value of seeing how they spelt it... I know, very traditional of me

On Mac, MacSword should work, and on Linux, BibleTime. I believe the repositories are the same.

And yes, the spelling is what makes it quaint. But you really should check out Wycliffe's Middle English. You can read it in the original spelling here (PDF). And it would be pronounced rather like Dutch: this is before the Great Vowel Shift. The letter "y" should sometimes be a yogh and is a palatal fricative.

jan aleksan:

ceigered:

jan aleksan:
o mai gode! Frensh pipol ar kurenteli divilopingue eu GNU! ouate eu mèsse!

eu GNU? ouate du yu mien bai GNU?

eu fri softouère (ouele, ine zisse ekzample, ite ize eu fri langouadje zate ize divilopède bai sévérale pipole), laike Lineukse

Now I wondering if we are allowed to write like this in this english-only forum. ^^"

Audelie ineuf, zeu vé yu raite zisse sounds ekzactli laike zeu vé zeu CEO (PDG) av mai compagnie sounds vène hi spiquese. Hi isse so harde te undeurstande four ausse pour anglophones.

Senegaùlo:The previous version of english was french... before it degenerated into english... (previous to french they used to speak saxon, dutch, danish and breton ...)
So we can state that it was easier indeed because french is far easier than english as a lot of people learn it just because they like it...

Sorry Senegaùlo but I have to respectfully disagree, unless you are referring to English as the "legal/official language of the English people" in which case you are correct (although elaboration would make things complicated given that there was also Latin and Middle-English spoken at the same time as French in England ).

If you are referring to the English language (but I was under the impression you were referring to just the legal language, but nonetheless), the precursor was Anglo-Saxon, the west-germanic language (or group of mutually intelligible languages) which was highly influenced by Old Norse (aka the 'Danish' of the day, as you mentioned). And of course Old Norse, some dialects highly related to Dutch, Breton and a variety of celtic languages would have been spoken too. Of course then the Normans came, who spoke Norman French which then became the Anglo-Norman language, then Latin became the language of the church, and then eventually we have Tri-linguism (I think that is the term) in England with the Scots language breaking off due to geographical and gaelic influence and now we have a weird child language called Post-Modern English ... So you are right and wrong in that respect. And plus, French is as hard as English at the moment anyway, and I believe Anglo-Norman French (virtually its own language) at the time was no better, although the writing would had better-matched the spoken language no doubt.

But my ramblings aside, you have brought up something interesting Senegaùlo - would we had been better off sticking with Anglo-Norman French (which no doubt by now probably would sound just like English with all the English words taken out and badly-pronounced French words replacing them )?

Quoi est votre opinion sur l'matter (directé à tout de vous)?
(keep in mind 'sur' would probably sound more like 'shoor' because of the great vowel shift and palatalisation of the 's' by contact of 'u' and 'est' would either be 'eh' or 'ei' . Yes, too much time on my hands)

(also for people interested in this, I know there are some existing Norman-language dialects in the Channel, e.g. Jerry. See down the bottom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_French)

@ Jan: Oueit - ouere can ai faind this fri GNU langouidge developede bai frentch pipols? Ite saounds verrie interestingue!

@ jchthys - you are quite a resourceful person! I have downloaded the PDF of Wycliffe's English, and I will try and download MacSword next provided my slow internet connection (slow due to me overusing it) lets me.

Northmen/normans were great conquerors with great spirit of integration into the land they conquered/settled : russia, normandy, sicilia, holy land! They fusioned into the land. I've read that William the Conqueror, almost 100 years after the settlement of northmen in normandy didn't speak viking language anymore and went in a special school to learn it!

I'm touched when i see the bayeux's tapestry of the conquer of England by William. Because of him, a lot of french words are in the english language and i can understand it easier. England and France are really nearby. A lot of kings of England (+ of France) lied on our beautiful land of France, mine is James II, 4 km from me. I often visit him, respectfully...

I would not really say that the Normans had a great spirit of integration. They conquered territories and imported their language. The nobles (=Normans) spoke Norman French, the peasants spoke the local language. In England, the English of the time (Anglo-Saxon) would have been the language of the low class. In the end, English only survived as a language because the Norman aristocracy was only a small percentage of the overall population of England. True integration would have meant that the aristocracy spoke English, as did everyone else. Instead, William the Conquerer was just one in a series of "English" kings who did not speak English at all. The early Norman kings of England spoke English extremely poorly, or not at all. The first Norman king who was a native English speaker didn't come until around 300 years after the invasion. Basically, for hundreds of years, if you were an English person, you had to learn Norman French to get anywhere in life.

Senegaùlo:

Sorry Senegaùlo but I have to respectfully disagree, unless you are referring to English as the "legal/official language of the English people" in which case you are correct (although elaboration would make things complicated given that there was also Latin and Middle-English spoken at the same time as French in England ).

You don't need to be sorry, I was kidding...
In fact, I am one of those who still speak the previous language of Britain : ar brezoneg, yez Vreiz ha yez Vreiz Veur gwechall goz... (la bretonan, lingvo de Bretonio kaj de Britio antaù multa tempo...)

Ha good, I couldn't tell (that's what's troublesome about text-based communications, right? ). I am impressed by the Breton, I am currently attempting to learn Cornish (an Gernewek), which is a close relative to Breton. Which probably explains why I understood partially the first bit (yez = language, Breiz?/Vreiz = Britainny, Meur/Veur = great, ha = and )

Erinja:Basically, for hundreds of years, if you were an English person, you had to learn Norman French to get anywhere in life.

Or you could speak Norwegian and wear bear skins and wield a bloomin big sword. That always achieved things . I do believe robbing from the rich and giving to the poor also had its place, but that might be even more out of place historically than I think.

Interestingly though, while you probably had to learn Anglo-Norman French in order to 'ascend' through the ranks of society, I doubt it faithfully represented the language of continental Europe spoken as 'French', given that many would have had to learn it from an Anglo-Saxon linguistic background, probably why we pronounce the majority of our 'French imports' (like 'majority' and 'import') so strangely.

Also this draws an interesting parallel. It could be said that one cannot get far in life still without sufficient knowledge of the legacy Anglo-Norman French left behind - if you lived your entire life using purely Germanic roots people would likely think poorly of your intelligence even if you were in actual fact smarter than them.