/lit/ - Literature

>>16453093
Ok barbarian

>>16453093
Good. What went wrong with English? Why did it go from OP to the nigger language that it is today?

>>16453143
French speaking Normans and Old Norse speaking Vikings anally raped Old English highly simplifying its morphology and displacing major swathes of its lexicon.

>>16453093
>þat hiz biuþ
that his bussy

>>16453156
sad, but at least it makes English an analytic language. I like the simplified morphologly, but it would be nice to have a purer stain of words. Kinda like anglish. But its gay to actively try to make it a thing now, besides just for entertainment value.

Unless some autistically nationalist group takes over english or something. On that topic, a lot of people in the mid 17th century around the english civil war were really raring to "cast of the norman yolk" and if that party had more support in parlament (which it very much could have durring that tumultuous time) they might have intentionally purged the english language of its norman (and somewhat skandy) elements. It really could have been lads.

>>16453217
>but at least it makes English an analytic language
Only shit tier languages are analytic. Chad languages are synthetic.

>>16453232
idk man, i speak latin and english, so I can appreciate synthetic, but I cant deny that analytic seems a more practical sort in this age. Also, ive read to much good english literature to think synthetic is necessarily better.

>>16453232
Analytic language is objectively superior

bump

>>16453093
Looking at old english honestly makes me sad
It looks so much better than what we have today

>>16453093
Fuck you and FUCK your dead "religion". I'm so glad Christians piss on your graves everyday by merely existing, proving they really are an indominable force that can't be extinguished.

>>16453143
They deserve it for converting to the desert cult they obviously didn’t care about their heritage

>>16453232
>synthetic
>Chad

>>16453093
Can native English speakers read stuff like this, or do they need it translated? Swedish speaker here, and I can read the above with some effort.

>Looking at old english honestly makes me sad
>It looks so much better than what we have today

>>16453727
People with exposure to early modern English can probably make it out, but the illiterate niggers you see today probably wouldn't have a clue.

>>16453727
You need spend a long time "learning" it. The older the harder. It's easy when the words are familiar, but you're fucked when they're not, same with the letters. So it's hard for English speakers to get it.


In all, most English speakers can hardly understand English, let alone this, so no.

>>16453232
>>16453726
Forgot this

>>16453727
No, it's far removed from modern English. It's like expecting a modern French speaker to understand Latin.

>>16453606
wut? op said nothing of religion. just languange.

>>16453737
>>16453742
Makes sense I guess, your language changed a lot more than other languages did in the 1500-1800 period. Especially the vowel shift. If you pronounce English words (Especially the simple old ones like "name") with the old vowels it sounds like any Scandinavian language.

It's too bad because it means you're way more separated from your old texts than other nations.

>>16453727
No, but they might get some of it if you said it slowly orally instead of handing them text. but only some quotes, not most. This one, id say they can.

>>16453755
If you ask *Anglos* they have no nation and like it that way, so your lament is doubly sad.

>>16453755
>Old texts
What? Beowulf...Other than that its Christian trash

How do people like anglish? I personally enjoy trying to transfer more or less modern english to a largely germanic lexicon.

>>16453773
I like it partly because it shows how much non-English Germanic languages suck.

>>16453762
What would be the oldest English text that natives can read? I can read Swedish stuff from ~1300 but if it gets older than that it becomes difficult, and I only pick up on single words. Although that may be because basically the only extant texts from that period are legal documents. Of course the Eddas exist too, but they're Icelandic/Norse and not Swedish.

>>16453766
??? Surely you have historical records and some such.

>>16453755
No, it just means that those old texts were never ours to begin with.

>>16453787
>What would be the oldest English text that natives can read?
Harry potter.

>>16453792
Why is the Anglo so self-hating? I mean I'm Swedish and we are basically the champions of self-loathing, but there's still some interest in the history of the region, and stuff like that.

>>16453798
I'm not self-hating, I just understand how far removed we are--linguistically and culturally--from our Old English speaking forefathers. Thanks to Norman influence, they're more your ancestors than mine.

>>16453787
Yeah one history book isn’t going to be worth reading for the prose. You’re lucky because at least you dodged Christianity long enough to write something down with the Eddas

>>16453787
Probably Chaucer (14th century)

>>16453810
Normans didn’t have as much influence as Caxton. Nor genetically do they

>>16453812
I believe it was mainly Christian monks that actually transcribed the Eddas. There are some hilariously non-subtle added bits too. The traditional end of the world myth just ends with the world dying, the gods get overwhelmed and the entire world is destroyed. Then there's this little bit at the end, that's clearly from a much later author, that says "But actually two people, a man and a woman survived and they went on to repopulate the world".

>>16453835
Beowulf was the same but at least its something

>>16453787
Yah probably 1400 to 1500 ish for english. But they would probably sound a bit weird due to great vowel shift. People complain about not understanding shakespeare, but thats due to funking and poetic word usuage rather than not understanding the words themselves.
>>16453812
Wherent the eddas writen down by christian? seeing how the pagan norse didnt write much beside on monuments. and those where like 12 words max.

>>16453824
Caxton inherited an already heavily Norman-influenced English. It's not like her turned Old English into English lmao

>>16453855
he turned*

>>16453835
I agree there were definitly some pretty starkly obvious additions, but can we be sure
>The traditional end of the world myth just ends with the world dying, the gods get overwhelmed and the entire world is destroyed. Then there's this little bit at the end, that's clearly from a much later author, that says "But actually two people, a man and a woman survived and they went on to repopulate the world.
isnt somewhat legitament. im not an expert on norse myth, but is ragnarok supose to be the ultimate end or is it a cyclical history thing where it starts anew. in that cause, that bit of synchronisity isnt that big. and anyways, thats already kinda a major deviation from god creating adam and eve. also, synchronisity wise isnt Valhallah likely one about heaven that got absorbed into norse religion through osmosis with the christians they have been trading with and sacking on occation for a few hundred years?

>>16453798
Because American Anglos replaced their culture with "race"

They're not English, they're "white"

Which means fuck all. So being Anglo means fuck all.

>>16453855
Well he did because he standardised it. Its not like there wasn’t Latin in England before the Normans or the English

>>16453741
>information density
Virgin faggotry. Manly languages are long and thick.

>>16453243
>but I cant deny that analytic seems a more practical sort in this age.
If that were the case, you would start speaking like an American Negro (which you probably already do) in ebonics or whatever. Degenerate tier.

>>16453741
Now compare English information density to Latin and I bet the latter will just blow it out of the water.

>>16453901
now say that in second-person singular present passive imperative form you autist.

>>16453904
Or to the literally who Asian languages which are muh analytic like English.

>>16453921
most romance and germanic languages are much more analytic than they use to be too.

>>16453918
u be speak like a brotha numsayin baka finna tryna lowkey y'all nigga

>>16453868
Modern English actually received its Latin component from Norman influence. So again, yes, he was an immense standardizing force, but the influence was already set in place, ready to be formalized and concretized.

>>16453928
How synthetic of you.

>>16453901
Ebonics is actually less analytic than standard English lmao

>>16453862
Whether the additions are Christian or not are not entirely certain. There are of course theories that Ragnarok was cyclical even before Christian influence. Some claim Ragnarok originally was the ultimate end of the world, and Christian scholars added the bit about the re-birth, and others argue that the re-birth had always been part of it.

Odds are the idea of Valhalla got influenced by the Christians, but the idea was around much earlier than that. E.g. I believe the earliest surviving mention of it is from the 10th century, which was before any major trading and pillaging of Christian lands. Consider also that the concept existed in Iceland which was much more isolated than the Scandinavian countries.

Furthermore there are many, many places a dead person could go after their life came to an end, Valhalla being for slain warriors that Odin specifically selected. The Eddas specify nine different heavenly realms, and in addition there is Hel. The latter, while sounding similar to the English Hell has very little in common with it.

>>16453934
>Modern English actually received its Latin component from Norman influence
eh kinda. Most of the frenchy sounding latin components. A lot of the more latin sounding ones come later and are pulled directly from eclesiastical or classical sources for religious and academic use.

>>16453904
Cope. English beats Latin too

>>16453934
How was the Latin in England different from the continent. Also you can’t know that without Caxton modern English was inevitable

>>16453938
but it be moh practical n short cuz it speak like cave niggas y'all

>>16453741
> Spanish may seem to be spoken at a higher speed than Vietnamese, but that doesn't make it any more 'efficient'. Researchers have shown that human languages are equally effective at transmitting information, even if the speeds at which they are spoken differ.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190905124520.htm

>>16453952
Again, Caxton wasn't speaking Old English. It was long gone by his time.

>>16453960
This is such bullshit

>>16453944
Based English major

>>16453960
All languages are equal, case closed. May as well just speak Ebonics now.

>>16453939
I dont disagree that there might have already been a somewhat formed domain that got synchronised, but im pretty sure
> I believe the earliest surviving mention of it is from the 10th century, which was before any major trading and pillaging of Christian lands
is flat out false. The Danelaw in largely christian anglo-saxon england was already established and trade a pillaging has been a firm thing for hundreds of years by then. Heck, the pillage of Lindisfarne was in 793 and im pretty sure they had trade since before then.
>Consider also that the concept existed in Iceland which was much more isolated than the Scandinavian countries.
true, but most of the writings from island where compiled well after christian contact was made and established.

Not that any of this is unheard of, christian heaven and the greek eulysium also had a similar synchronicity.

>>16453968
Again you miss the point I never said anything about Old English it would have evolved on its own anyway

>>16453972
cope

>>16453974
yea muh nigga, speak like a brotha numsayin y'all

>>16453988
Cope? Cope with what?

>>16454015
cope

>>16454020
Cope with copes? Copes within copes? A cope with no organs? a cope that by its very nature copes with itself and of itself.

>>16454028
cope cope