Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >English, by contrast, is substantially different >from just the Middle English of Chaucer, let alone the Old English of >Beowulf. I took a class in "The Canterbury Tales," in the original >with a side-by-side translation, from a Chaucer scholar. A few >recognizable words, a few familar patterns. But quite clearly there has >been significant evolution of English in the past half- millennium. By >contrast, the Koran is readable in the original by modern Arabs. > >--Tim May > Very true. Communicating with a 14th century Englishman would be difficult. I took a similar major's course with Robert Kaske in the 80's without the benefit of the side-by-side. It was as close to learning a new language as I got without having it count towards my foreign language requirement. I think a modern reader would recognize a fair number of words and structures. In a good bit of that they would be mistaken in their understanding and overall would be hard-pressed to comprehend the texts in any depth.
An interesting question that arises out of the observation that some languages are relatively static and others - like English - have been changing steadily. Is there any connection between the evolution behavior of the language and the vitality of the culture? I think so. m
