Was the previous version of English easier than the current version?
ceigered, 2009 m. balandis 30 d.
Žinutės: 18
Kalba: English
ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. balandis 30 d. 08:27:51
I was having a read of the 1560 Geneva bible (as shown on Amazon) and I noticed when reading the text that there were some conventions that were notably more easier to understand than our current version of English, some of them resembling features found in Esperanto.
For example in most cases the differences between verbs, adjectives and nouns were much more notable (adjectives often had '-e' at the end, and of course verbs were conjugated per person).
And no doubt the writing system was much more comprehensible and true to the language spare a few old conventions such as 'i' instead of 'j' and 'u' instead of 'v' (but that's not really as bigger issue as grammar
)So any thoughts on this? I'm personally curious as to what the difference would be like if we reverted back to an older form of the language/if we still used the older form of the language.
1Guy1 (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. balandis 30 d. 09:16:27
ceigered:From my ageing memory, English of this period was far less standardised. There were more pronounced regional variations and many spelling variants, even for personal names.
So any thoughts on this? I'm personally curious as to what the difference would be like if we reverted back to an older form of the language/if we still used the older form of the language.
ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. balandis 30 d. 10:00:23
Ah I forgot that, now that would be very interesting to see nowadays (although I believe the legacy of this exists even nowadays with various British dialects and with the oft debated Scots/English linguistic distinction).
Cheers 1Guy1 for reminding me of this
I wonder if the lack of standardisation was better or worse... Maybe it would have been more flexible yet more confusing.... mmm.. interesting...
jan aleksan (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. balandis 30 d. 10:33:41
ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. balandis 30 d. 10:56:01
jan aleksan:I prefer to wait for the version 3.0 ^^Soz its currently in Alpha stage so ull hafta w8 4 it bcoz its a bit buggy atm n there r 2 many probs btween the developers.
(English v2.97.10c Alpha)
Mi bedaŭras, ĝi nuntempe estas alfa-a tial vi devas atendi ĉar ĝi estas tro erarema nuntempe kaj estas tro multaj problemoj inter la evoluigantoj
Ironchef (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. balandis 30 d. 16:58:00
Ironchef (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. balandis 30 d. 16:59:10
jan aleksan:I prefer to wait for the version 3.0 ^^Yes, I'm still waiting for the bug fix for the "ough" problem that was supposed to be fixed by now
jan aleksan (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. balandis 30 d. 17:10:03
ceigered:o mai gode! Frensh pipol ar kurenteli divilopingue eu GNU! ouate eu mèsse!jan aleksan:I prefer to wait for the version 3.0 ^^Soz its currently in Alpha stage so ull hafta w8 4 it bcoz its a bit buggy atm n there r 2 many probs btween the developers.
(English v2.97.10c Alpha)
Mi bedaŭras, ĝi nuntempe estas alfa-a tial vi devas atendi ĉar ĝi estas tro erarema nuntempe kaj estas tro multaj problemoj inter la evoluigantoj
jchthys (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. gegužė 1 d. 01:11:54
One can download the entire text of the Geneva 1599 from e-sword. There is a modern-spelling in print now too, but I don’t know if Amazon sells it.
ceigered (Rodyti profilį) 2009 m. gegužė 1 d. 08:44:38
jan aleksan:eu GNU? ouate du yu mien bai GNU?
o mai gode! Frensh pipol ar kurenteli divilopingue eu GNU! ouate eu mèsse!
and at @ jchthys:
I was actually thinking though that regional dialects could have made the language easier - at least then, you had more options about pronunciation etc.
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