Talk:Old English/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A problem with the translations

IMHO, using all the surviving cognates in the translations, regardeless of their meaning, is... err... Not Good. The result is a translation into a language that doesn't exist - a New English from an alternative universe where much of the Old English grammar, many of the Old English words and all the Old English meanings of words have been preserved. It's an amusement for a child, but it's not encyclopedic. Indeed, inventing a language like this gives the concept of OR a whole new meaning. Moreover, it doesn't read good - actually, reading it is a torture even for nerds. "I nam"? "Mid God's support"? "Swike"? WTH, is this supposed to be English? It's not 19th century poetic language, it's not Scotch dialect, it's not Elizabethan, it's not even Caxton's English. Instead of placing the confusing or simply invented cognates first and then adding the explanatory words, it would make more sense to do it the other way round. I.e., not:

And I kithe(make known/couth to) you, that I will be [a] hold(civilized) lord and unswiking(uncheating) to God's rights(laws) and to [the] rights(laws) worldly.

but, at the very worst,

I make known ("kithe") to you, that I will be a civilized ("hold") lord and uncheating ("unswiking") to God's laws ("rights") and to the worldly laws ("rights").

I'm not coming back, because I'm afraid a potential quarrel with the creator(s) of this translation might take too long.--91.148.159.4 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current translation using only modern descendants of the OE words is unreadable and pretty much useless. —Angr 08:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  ---- "It doesn't read good"?  hmmm....
Actually, all of the words used may be found without much trouble in the OED. They are certainly not invented and many of them were in 19th century poetic language and northern dialects.--97.89.32.158 (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I definitely have to come down on the side of the people who say that the translation as it stands now is absurd, as is the argument that the word choice is good because you can find all the words in the OED. For that matter, you could find all the words in an Old English dictionary. Just because they are in a dictionary doesn't mean that it makes sense to use them in what purports to be a literal translation. For example, according to the OED, worth (from OE weorTan) has not been used as a verb since the 14th century. It is the same for afrain, but with the added problem that the OED entry for affrayne only gives "to question," which confuses the matter immensely. In this case even the archaic word choice fails to match the OE meaning. This is all compounded by the sloppiness of the translation in instances such as oTTaet translated as orthat. In OE, oT did not generally mean or. It meant until. OTTe meant or. I have to conclude that the translator here used the incorrect orthat just because it looked more similar, even though it was wrong. Then we have scathers. Why is there an -r in the ending here? Going with the argument that any word in the OED is fair game, the word here is scathe, which, with the OE case system passed down to today, in the plural would be scathes, not scathers. Funnily enough, the word scathe (which is archaic or dialectic in every sense), was last used to mean enemy or a person who does harm in 1205, which is so close to the Old English period as to be insignificant for our purposes. Another egregious example of incorrect word derivation occurs with magth. First of all, the abbreviation is not c.f.; it is cf., the Latin confer, meaning compare, and while it might be interesting to note that Irish has a somewhat similar word, the derivation of the OE has nothing to do with Irish. If you look up may in the OED, you will see that it has a purely Germanic background, with cognate words in pretty much every Old Germanic language. As a general note, it is completely absurd to translate something into a language that cannot be read by anybody. The point of giving a translation is to make something intelligible. If you have to have access to the OED (which unless you are on a University campus, is not a given), it's a bad translation. If that's the case, you could just grab an OE grammar and dictionary and figure it all out word for word. Also, I haven't even talked about the fact that following the OE word order creates a meaningless jumble in Modern English. Thus, unless you already know the context, the reader will think that we the listeners might be Gardanes, when in fact we are hearing about the Gardanes. 76.71.11.145 (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
To make the translations better, I would suggest that, rather than giving a translation into bizarrely archaicized English, words be glossed off to the side (with archaic forms in parentheses), and a smooth modern English translation below. This is especially important in the case of the poetry, because as I noted above, the way it stands now is a travesty. 76.71.11.145 (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I just added a translation into Modern English below the Beowulf translation. I paid little to no attention to the work of the earlier gloss, since I found it so problematic. My translation is based on the text and glossary in Mitchell and Robinson's edition of Beowulf. I would encourage someone else to improve upon the line by line gloss, but I have no desire to do so myself. 76.71.11.145 (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The edits as stand seem alright. But, as has already been discussed at length, the idea behind the gloss is not to be an effective translation, but a metric to help give a perspective of the extent of actual difference in the language apart from orthographic conventions. Obviously, anyone researching Old English either doesn't know what these texts are and only cares about what the language looks like, or they have already read a translation of the texts and are interested in the original language. Either way, translating the texts into good modern english prose doesn't really matter here. So if you feel that an original prose translation is called for, fine. But you should understand that it is somewhat beyond the scope of this article.--99.206.157.217 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the idea that the gloss is supposed to help give perspective. However, I think that I and others throughout this entire discussion have amply demonstrated that it fails to do that, through its poor use of archaisms. As I outlined in my post above, if we want to provide a useful comparison, there should be both a good gloss (using non-archaic words) and a good, literal translation. A gloss only provides points of comparison for lexicon, but completely ignores comparative syntax, which surely is equally important. To say that the words are important, but not the order we put the words in, fails to take account of the fullness of English language history. 70.27.200.160 (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Although you refer to another post, the post immediately above is the only post to Wikipedia from your IP. Which post are you referring to? Better yet, why not create a login and have an identity here. —teb728 t c 20:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how anyone has amply demonstrated that the gloss fails to give perspective. On the other hand, some people have said that it was helpful. I for one find it very helpful to see Old English words adjusted to a more recent form, which is why I helped make the gloss. Sometimes a difficult word in Old English doesn't seem nearly so difficult when you see what form it took several hundred years later. It might even reveal itself to be the direct ancestor of a word you already know. Old English scholarship is much easier when you realize that you already know and understand many of the seemingly foreign words. How does the use of archaisms detract from the usefullness of the gloss for the purposes of this page? I would like to understand what exactly you were looking for from this page and what you think others would want to find on it.
As for word order, yes in our temporal and geographical dialects of English we use different styles of expression than were used 1000 years ago in various regions of England. But rendering the ideas of the original text into one of any number of possible ways of saying them today implies that there is some sort of linear progression or systematic development of syntax that supports whatever style you choose. In reality, there has never been one statistically correct way of saying anything in English, then or now. Beowulf was a work of poetry, of artistry, its syntax is reflective of the author's own personal style, and how you choose to translate Beowulf into modern prose is almost entirely reflective of your own artistic sense of expression. This is ok when someone just wants to understand roughly what the text says, but it doesn't help someone trying to learn about the Old English poetry in it's own right. In my opinion, the gloss(whether using archaisms or not) should only translate what is actually written and not attempt to translate the style of the Old English into a modern style, this can only reflect a subjective and arbitrary opinion on how best to phrase the ideas. --65.6.55.56 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the archaisms is that the vast majority of people are going to have to look them up in a very comprehensive dictionary in order to understand what they mean. Good arguments for this have already been given above: not everyone has access to OED, and even if they do, they shouldn't need to consult a specialist source in order to understand a Wikipedia page. BeeoftheBirdoftheMoth (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead Links

A couple of the links are dead, or link to websites with a lot of dead links. For example, the Absolute Beginner's Guide, if you try to use it, only has two chapters online and an invitation to buy (fine), but if you actually want to buy it the link to the store is dead.

I'm not changing anything because I'm not that Wp-savvy; but someone who knows what they're doing might want to check out the link integrity.

Quite a few of the links, I should say, I found very useful -- great article. CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 4 August 2008

Thanks, we'll look into it. In the future, though, please don't delete other people's comments when you add your own (perhaps it was inadvertent?), and please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). —Angr 05:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, entirely inadvertant. I'll try this sig thing: 216.15.121.40 (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)CC.

Dialects section problem

The Dialects section may have become garbled with this edit. This came to my attention with this recent edit. Ordinarily I would suspect an anon edit with no edit summary, but Æthelwold lived later than Alfred. Still it may not be right, for I believe it is Late West Saxon that is called Classical. Can an expert fix it? —teb728 t c 08:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. At first I thought the anon's edit was vandalism, but indeed Alfred is earlier than Aethelwold, and I too thought Late West Saxon was the Classical language. And Alfred and Aethelwold are only about a century apart, you wouldn't expect the language to change that much between them. —Angr 08:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There were to my knowledge, two Kings called Aethelwold; one before and one after Alfred, so maybe this can clear up some confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.82.78 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There was to my knowledge no king of Wessex named Æthelwold. There were Æthelwolds who were kings of other places, but presumably they would not have spoken West Saxon. We're talking about Æthelwold of Winchester, who was a bishop. —teb728 t c 18:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Received Pronunciation "dialect"

In the Dialects section of the article, there's this paragraph:

Modern-day Received Pronunciation is not a direct descendant of the best-attested dialect, Late West Saxon. It is rather a descendent of a Mercian dialect — either East Mercian or South-East Mercian. Thus, Late West Saxon had little influence on the development of Modern English (by which is meant RP or some similar dialect) and the developments occurring in its antecedent, Middle English.

To treat Received Pronunciation as a dialect contradicts its own article, which states that Received Pronunciation is not a dialect, but only a pronunciation of English. As I am not a linguist, nor have I read much on linguistics or anything on this particular issue outside of Wikipedia, I do not feel comfortable making any changes myself. Laogeodritt [ Talk | Contribs ] 02:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Dialects are mutually intelligible varients of a language, so RP is most definitely a dialect of English, unless of course it's not intelligible to you. Then I guess it would have to be a sister language.--65.6.62.47 (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to use RP when discussing dialects. The writer (and the person who made the comment immediately above) presumably means Standard English'. If anyone is unclear as to the difference between an accent and a dialect, may I be permitted to use myself as an example ? I am from the North of England, but well-educated - in the State system, not in public (ie expensive) schools). In informal conversation, and perhaps in SMS messages, I use dialect words such as aye, ginnel, and nesh (yes, alley, soft). In an office meeting or when doing a presentation, or when writing a report, I sick to Standard English words. But however formally I am speaking, I never use an RP accent. RP is the accent used mostly by people (from whatever part of England) who went to public schools or want people to think they did. My accent is a mixture of Lancashire (where I was born) and Yorkshire (where I have lived for decades). For instance, for me the a in path or bath is the same as the one in gas - although I have lost the rhotic r, which is still used in Lancashire and the South West of England, but not in Yorkshire, and the long oooo in book. I am therefore a good example of someone who in formal situations uses the Standard English dialect (words and grammar) but not the RP accent (pronounciation). A literary example would be JB Priestley. Because he used Standard English, it is not possible when reading his books to discern what part of England (or Britain) he comes from ; but his northern English origin is immediately apparent when you hear a recording of his non-RP voice. Could someone please amend the article to remove the use of RP as an example of a dialect ? (Chris Jones, Sheffield, Yorkshire - 25 August 2009)

Linguistics makes no distinction between dialect and "accent". Vocabulary, pronunciation, idiom, and even syntactic constructs are all characteristics which set dialects apart from each other. The fact that traditional orthography obscures differences in pronunciation does not mean that everyone who writes in the literary dialect uses "standard English", if such a thing really exists. Ultimately, every mutually intelligible variation in a language is a dialect. Unfortunately, English speakers of all ilks have a rather bad habit of marginalizing localized dialects as some sort of perverted "accentation" of an idealized "standard English", which is usually the pedagogal dialect of the one doing the marginalizing.
It is interesting to note that a great many words in German and Dutch differ from English words only in slight pronunciation differences, being in all else the very same word e.g. Ofen(G)/Oven(D)/Oven(E), Boot(G)/Boot(D)/Boat(E), Tor(G)/Deur(D)/Door(E), etc. Such differences in pronunciation are not dismissed by linguists as merely differences in the speaker's regional accent, they are recognized as essential and defining characteristics in these languages. Of course if these were the only sort of differences, the three might still be sister dialects of a common language. Nevertheless, it is differences of just such an arbitrary character which may compound one day to divide sister dialects into sister languages. So, the long and short of it is, RP, in all it's idiosyncrasies of pronunciation and word preference, is indeed a dialect of English.
However, I think the article is really just speaking of modern English dialects generally, and as such, RP was only mentioned as perhaps the most well defined example of such a dialect. As far as the article is concerned, I don't think Modern English as a language really needs any specification in this case, especially as its "anticedent Middle English"(of which there were many dialects) is left unelaborated. I would like to change the first "Modern-day Recieved Pronunciation" to "Modern English, and delete the parenthetical explanation. If no one disagrees, I'll go ahead. 99.200.38.252 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Linguistics does make a distinction between dialect and accent: an accent is a form of pronunciation only; a speaker's choice of lexicon, use of syntax, pragmatics, etc., is part of his dialect but has nothing to do with his accent. When Eliza Doolittle said, "If I was doing it proper, what was you sniggering at?", she succeeded in using the RP accent, but Professor Higgins (being a phonetician) had neglected to teach her the other aspects of the high-prestige English dialect apart from accent. +Angr 11:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A note to all Old English lovers out there

Hi, I speak a very little Old English, but quite like the language. I have posted an external link to a new (quite new) wiki that I've made concerning Old English ([1]), and would really love some help with it. Gottistgut (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


Celtic influence

The section on putative Celtic influence is very short. Would it be possible to expand it at least with a list of syntactic features which can be argued to be of Celtic origin? Alternatively, if this is deemed too controversial for the main OE article, would there be any mileage in starting a separate article on theories of Celtic influence on English? --Doric Loon (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also it should be noted properly that it is a minority view. At the moment it is written in such a way that it implies that it is either a majority view or "experst be damned this is correct" but that is too be expected on Wikipedia, these days.

Edit: Note that it is very minority in regards to Old English with most (who believe such a thing) arguing that Celtic influence on the Syntax was during the Middle English stage. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Orthography

I don't think it's accurate to say in the Orthography section that the various styles of writing replaced each other as if in a time line. Surely while a new style came into vogue, the others did not cease to be written and read, and different styles prevailed in different spheres of writing. It seems like it would be sufficient just to detail the most common styles of writing used in Old English manuscripts.--72.150.235.179 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

definite article

It strikes me that there is apparently no definite article in Old English - at least there is no mention of it here and in the related wiki articles. Could anyone write something about it? [revilo178 - 10.02.2009, 23:01] -- I've found it. [11.02.2009, 12:48]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Old_English_morphology" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.134.63.101 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As a correction, there's no indefinite article. The forms of the are se (m), sēo (f), and þæt (n). — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ecgþeow

Could s.o. take a look at Ecgþeow? The IPA seemed dubious, but I can't do much better. kwami (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic Politics, English versus Saxon

I have added a brief article on the relationship between English and Saxon with notes on the evolution of scholarly opinions about their relationship. I think it is very important for readers to be aware of the nationalistic politics involved with terms like "Old English" and "Saxon" and so on. Simply presenting the official Oxbridge view of the origins of the English language and not informing the reader that these views have changed over time is deceptive. Regarding the "Celtic" (I would use the word Gaelic) influences on English you could make the same kind of arguments: it does the reader a diservice to pretend these issues do not exist. For example, virtually all the manuscripts written in so-called "Old English" are written in insular scripts that originated in Ireland. For the purposes of this article I think it is unecessary to try to explicate all the complexities of linguistic politics involved, BUT it is important that the reader at least be made aware of them so that they know they are reading information that has been politically influenced. John Chamberlain (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am about to remove your section. I can’t tell how much it is your original research and how much is based on Bragg. Insofar as it is original research, we cannot use it: Wikipedia does not accept original research; all content must be previously published in reliable sources. On the other hand, insofar as it is based on Bragg, we still cannot use it: Bragg is neither a linguist nor a historian; so he is not a reliable source for this article.
Even if you had reliable published sources, we could not use it in its present form. All Wikipedia content must be presented from a neutral point of view. But you present it as fact—despite your acknowledgement here that there is a contrary point of view. —teb728 t c 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Although there is a list of sources within the article, it is not clear from where individual sections are referenced. For instance: where is the Charter of Cnut located? It could be clearer in the article itself. Zach Beauvais (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Who was first to realize Anglo-Saxon = An early form of English?

Does anyone here know who was the first person to realize that Anglo-Saxon was an early form of English? John Joscelyn was the Latin secretary of Matthew Parker (b. 1504), and Parker asked him to write an Anglo-Saxon dictionary, though this was never finished. Roughly 500 years had passed between the Norman Invasion and Parker's era. By that time, English was almost in its modern form, and Old English would have seemed like a foreign language, just as it does now. There is no evidence that Joscelyn thought that the Anglo-Saxon manuscripts he studied were a form of early English. Anglo-saxon was not called "Old English" in Joscelyn's day. I think it is assumed that during the intervening 500 years, all the Anglo-Saxon manuscripts had been locked up in the monasteries and only came to the light of day after the Dissolution of the Monasteries. So if it wasn't Joscelyn, it would have been someone after him. Does anyone know who this would have been? Here's a link about Joscelyn: http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=11743 HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was never a time when people "forgot" that there had been an Anglo-Saxon kindgdom before the Norman conquest, and I don't think there was ever any other popular explanation for the origins of the English language other than that it was the language that had been spoken in English before the conquest. So I think it is safe to say that they knew that Anglo-Saxon was English. What people would not have appreciated before Joscelyn would be how much the language had changed, so it is quite possible that libraries were sitting with Old English mansucripts and didn't know what language they were. But if Joscelyn CALLED the language Anglo-Saxon, he knew it was English. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What OE words do we use in modern language?

What OE words do we use in modern language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.33.75 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 November 2009

Do you mean what Modern English words are derived from Old English words? Thousands and thousands of them (including every word I've written so far in this thread except "modern", "derived", "including", and "except"). Or do you mean what Old English words do we use in Modern English that are essentially loan words from Old English? Then I can think of only a few, such as ceorl, thegn, and witenagemot. +Angr 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Another loanword I can think of is "sibling", which is a modern revival (early 20th century) of an identical Old English word (albeit with a slightly different meaning – "relative, kinsman" – but it can probably still be considered a loanword). Hayden120 (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Most OE terms used in Modern English denote things OE, such as athel and atheling, wergild, fyrd (Modern ferd), gemot, here ("army"), etc. Others seem to have been revived unintentionally, like leach (liquid), bookhouse, bookstave, etc. Others: frith (peace), leech ("physician") and wicca have been revived in heathenry. Leasnam (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking out a tag without dealing with the underlying issue

When someone puts in a [clarification needed] tag, as I've done with the unclear statement that England was "created" in the 5th century, the proper response is either to rewrite the odd sentence so that it is clear or to put in a reference link/citation. The proper response is not simply to remove the tag without providing either clarity or a link. However, this is what User:TharkunColl has done twice. That is unfortunate. Moncrief (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your rewrite should suffice. Btw, it is often usefel to check the history to see what was stated in previous versions. Per this diff from 2005, the sentence originally stated "Old English was not static, and its usage covered a period of some 700 years – from the Anglo-Saxon migrations into England of the fifth century to some time after the Norman invasion of 1066, ..." I think the insertion of "that created England" (possibly by someone not fluent in English, and thus unaware of the implications of the sentence order) was merely to clarify that England didn't exist when the migrations occured, not necessarily to claim that "migrations that created England in the fifth century." A little research is often enlightening, but I often forget to do myself. I've even found missed vandalism that was 3-4 yearas old that way, when something just didn't look right, so I checked the history. - BilCat (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I like this original 2005 version even better. I should like to change it back to that wording if you don't object. I suppose someone could reasonably decide to change England to the country that would become England (the 2005 version you mention doesn't trouble me, for whatever reason; it seems clear that England with this wording is being used as a geographical entity-- the ages-old physical island, or a part of it-- rather than a then-extant country). At any rate, the 2005 version with or without that extra modification is certainly less awkward and more comprehensible than the version of a few days ago, which implied England was "created" in the fifth century. Moncrief (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, heck. I'm going to make that extra edit, too, as I think it's clearer. Moncrief (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC) I changed "England" to "Britain" because that's the word used in the Anglo-Saxon article to describe the migration of Anglo-Saxons to the physical island. See also one of the definitions in Great Britain, that it can refer to the island itself. This allows this article to avoid the complications of needing to clarify that England the country did not exist yet in the fifth century. Moncrief (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Charter of Cnut

The letter from Cnut (Canute) - as a Dane I call him Knud - is NOT from 1020, it is from 1027, when he returned from his journey to Rome, where he participated in the coronation of Conrad II. Jan Eskildsen 87.57.197.134 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Norse Influence

"It is very common for the intermixing of speakers of different dialects, such as those that occur during times of political unrest, to result in a mixed language, and one theory[who?] holds that exactly such a mixture of Old Norse and Old English helped accelerate the decline of case endings in Old English.[citation needed]"

I know that John McWhorter discusses this theory in the book "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English" (2008), but I am not sure if he originated it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by False dichotomy (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 November 2010

The originator of the theory matters less than the integrity of the source. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources may help you here. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Beowulf Translation

I can understand the value of using modern cognates of Old English words in translation so that people can easily identify word correspondences, but isn't it misleading if the modern cognate has a significantly different meaning than the Old English word? For that matter, can we really call a word like "thrum" modern, given that the last citation for it in the OED is 1450? When I take a quick look through the OED, I see that the most recent citation for all of the following words was in Middle English: gare, thede, thrum, ellen, freme, atee, frover. In the most extreme instance (ellen) the most recent citation is 1240. These are not modern cognates, but late medieval cognates of early medieval words. Would it be more useful to simply do interlinear glossing of the Old English rather than give late medieval cognates which subsequently have to be translated into Modern English? As a side note, I am using the term "modern cognate" here simply because it is what the article uses, but I personally would prefer "modern reflex" or "modern descendant." 99.231.30.19 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas William Shore

I can't help feeling it's rather odd that the citation of Thomas Shore's book now links the author's name to ru:Шор, Томас Уильям - his article in the Russian Wikipedia. I understand why Dmitri Koshelyev (Koshelyov? I don't know where the stress is) has done this - because there is an article on him in Russian and not one in English - but I wonder if it is helpful to general readers, who may be puzzled why they have been sent to this unreadable page. No doubt the best solution is to write an English article on him, but in the meantime is this helpful? --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Error in Article Grammar

"Also used occasionally were abbreviations for following m’s or n’s." In the Orthography section. It is incorrect to use apostrophes to denote plurality under any circumstances, even the plural of single letters, symbols, digits or acronyms. The correct way would be to italicise the m and n followed by an uninitialised s or vice versa. Another solution would be to reword the sentence thus: "Also used occasionally were abbreviations for following an m or an n." 86.136.153.246 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you, and Apostrophe#Use in forming certain plurals indicates that I am not alone. That article does lack references, but so do you. I find "m's" perfectly clear and less confusing than "ms" or "ms". And while rewording to avoid genuine ambiguity is worthwhile, rewording because people cannot agree about how to punctuate is a waste of everybody's time and effort. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Disagreement is not the issue, actual accepted English is the issue. If a few writers feel it is clearer to use an apostrophe in these cases, that does NOT make it correct. But hey! I was just pointing out an error, if you feel it is okay to have an encyclopedia article with a punctuation error in it, then that's up to you. Just go ahead and redefine the language as you see fit, then “everybody's” time and effort won't be wasted.86.136.153.246 (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Disagreement is the issue, because "correct" is not a single-valued function. Your "correct" does not trump mine. As a matter of fact the relevant authority here (insofar as there is one) is [[Wikipedia::Manual of Style]], which was what directed me to the section I cited above. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I do believe that the function of language, both written and oral, is clear communication between parties. "Correctness" is different both from person to person (an English teacher and an orator), as well as from generation to generation. There is not a word in our language that existed before someone made it up, and if we are to operate on someone's codification of our language, then whose shall we use? Which is correct? The Table Alphabeticall? The oldest surviving manuscripts? The Canterbury Tales? From where shall we draw our references? "m's" works just fine, and if enough people write it and understand it that way, then one day someone will be arguing with another about how correct it is............69.171.162.148 (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Garner's Modern American Usage, apostrophes can be used to "mark the plural of an acronym, number, or letter..." He gives the example of "p's and q's," so for this case I believe "m's or n's" is acceptable, and is easier to read and understand. This entry was found on page 674 of the third edition if you want to verify.

Fæder Ūre mistake

I notice that the g's in "forgyf" and "forgyfaþ" on line 6 of Fæder Ūre are not marked as palatalized. They should be. I am aware that a historically velar "g" before a "y" arising from i-mutation of "u" was not palatalized, but the "y" in "gyfan" is actually historically "i" (it is a strong verb - historical strong verbs didn't get i-mutated infinitives) - I won't bother going into the details of why it was written as "y" here. Also, there are clear Middle English examples that show that it was indeed palatalized. Most likely Modern English velar "give" is due to Norse influence.

I will do the correcting edit myself in a day or two, providing no one can object to what I've said. Gott wisst (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sound changes

I understand that the purpose of this table is to give a general overview of the changes. But it has gotten the chronology muddled a bit. Firstly, the -e of "five" was lost before the raising of unstressed e to i, because -e was lost while -i was not. Secondly, the loss of final -t occurred after the nasalisation of final -n. And according to Ringe 2006 the nasalisation happened before the change of ā to ō. The article Proto-Germanic gives a more detailed (and sourced) overview. CodeCat (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not all of Northumbria over run by Vikings

The sentence "Of these, all of Northumbria and most of Mercia were overrun by the Vikings during the 9th century." is not entirely accurate. The nothern part of the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria seems to have allied itself (or been anexed by) the King of the Scots during this turbulent period - thus becoming in a later time Lowland Scotland (Lothian etc) . It's the reason that today's, 'Scotland' speaks English (or 'Scots'if one prefers)rather than Gaelic as the orginal Scots did. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.4.144 (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Only Lothian and the eastern borders were anglosaxon in language and even that's iffy (enough placename evidence to suspect a survival of the northern welsh that far east). The western lowlands were mixed Gaelic and North Welsh. 216.252.76.74 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably true for the 9th century. However things moved on. There were large numbers of English refugees after 1066 and the Norman invasion, followed by even more refugees as a result of William's Harrowing of the North. In the next generation King David of Scotland, sponsored by Henry I, created Royal Burghs and populated them with people drawn from all parts of England. By the 16th century lowland Scots were described by one foreign visitor as speaking 'Saxon, old Teutonic, the same as in England'. Those dialects now commonly called Scots are in reality the northernmost dialects of 'Northern' or 'Northumbrian' English. Cassandra.

Ptolemys map from 2nd century only show Germaina and Germania Magna

The first I note FIRST German king was Charlemange of the 8th century!. So old English was latin as ins Bede's writtings, to King William of 1066 the dooms day book just to name a few examples. German did not exist in the 5th century it is IMPOSSIBLE!. So please if OLD English existed before the 13th century NORMANS that brought it to England. Please show some evidence. Also northen Germany near Holstein was part of Germany Magna, and they where not part of the Roman Empire, so they where not belivers of Christ. You need to do some research and stop writing dishonest lies. Atilla the Hun went up the danube and rhine and was killed in France 454AD. Avars had bases in Hunguary and Bugaria in the 8,9th century. Who ever wrote this of low intelligence. So please show the world!. Ohh sorry I believe some else wrote some thing simlar but you keep deleting his comments. Propaganda machine is at work here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.98.184 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What, you mean this, this and this are all wronggg?!1! Fuck me. Nortonius (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

All you do is tell your lies here. Engish language did not exist until the Norman's( Orginally a tribe from Scandinavia) brought it over from present day France over sometime in the late 13th century. Facts are 1. German language did not exist until 8th century!. Why see ptolemy's maps from 2nd century AD, Germania (Mostly Roman, Christians and where latin speakers and writers, and Germania Manga which includes the area's of Schleswig-Holstein ( East and northern side, Non Christians, most likey did not speak latin). Charlemange was note: First German king in mid 8th century who started the use of the German language see Monk "Abogran". So how could these Anglo Saxon mythical tribes speak OLD ENGLISH when the German language did not exist in the 5th century its IMPOSSIBLE!. Attila the hun also traveled up the Danube and then the Rhine and was killed in Gaul (France) no where near the Angles. No Huns made it that far ever, And the later Avars around the 8th and 9th century had bases in Hungary and Bulgaria. Mongols in the 13th century also never made it to Schleswig-Holstein area. Please supply some artifacts some copies of the actual documents from 1000-1500 years ago. And shame me in front of the whole world. Also the slavic tribes see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Saxoniae. Arrived in 9th century but yes all the Germanic and Germans tribes left for Britannia in the 5th century AD. My history is not the best but I believe only two unarmed Saxon tribes arrived by ship in the city of present day Wessex around 460,470AD but Saxony is near Czech Republic?. All English old documents like the dooms day book 1066, Bede the Monk, as example are in latin, all your churches before say the 16th century where all christian and later Catholic. I could go and on but you really should know better. OLD ENGLISH. Thou shall be quite now. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=germania+magna&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VYZ5U5ziGcnikAWAsoG4DQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=684#q=magna+germania&spell=1&tbm=isch https://www.google.com.au/#q=britannia+latin+cities+names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_place_names_in_Britain ROMANS spoke and wrote in latin. SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN WAS IN GERMANY MANGA they where not Christens like you!. OLD ENGLISH is mostly a latin based language

Number of speakers

What's the number of speakers? --Michael (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Old English had a grammar similar in many ways to Classical Latin. In most respects, including its grammar, it was much closer to modern German and Icelandic than to modern English."

These two sentences do not seem to agree. Also, under what possible interpretation was Old English "similar" to Classical Latin? Because they both had cases and grammatical gender? 151.163.2.113 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I just removed it. It seems redundant with the next (more accurate) sentence, anyway. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Good idea Shabidoo | Talk 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

My or mine

I moved this from my talk page, because others will be interested. — Eru·tuon 16:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, your revert to the IP's edit in the above may not be correct. The sentence begins: The only remnants of this system in Modern English are in a few pronouns (the meanings of I (nominative) my (genitive) and me (accusative/dative) in the first person provide an example).... However, the word my is an adjective, not a pronoun and the IP's change to mine is correct as it is a pronoun. Denisarona (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't responded to you yet. It's not time to revert my edit. The picture is a little more complicated than you say. My and mine both came from an Old English first-person singular genitive personal pronoun mīn. My is nowadays classified as an adjective or determiner, while mine is classified as a pronoun, but no longer as a personal pronoun, rather a "possessive pronoun". Really mine is kind of like a demonstrative that or quantifier some: there's a related adjective or determiner my, and mine is its noun-like form.
The paragraph is talking about personal pronouns, and neither my nor mine is a personal pronoun. My is considered a possessive adjective or determiner, because it's always used before a noun, while mine is called a possessive pronoun because it's used on its own without a noun. Since neither one is a personal pronoun, either we mention both or one of them. My is the adjective or determiner, and I would argue most similar to a genitive. That's why I think it should be mentioned rather than mine. — Eru·tuon 16:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
"my" was never a pronoun, not even in Old English. It has been an independent determiner at least since Proto-Indo-European times, and unlike true genitives, it inflected for case, number and gender itself. One of these case forms ended up becoming used as the genitive form of "I", but this genitive form was only used with verbs or prepositions that required their object in the genitive. It was not used the way we now use "mine"; the determiner was used for that. CodeCat (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks for the correction. But it sounds like mīn was both a personal pronoun and a determiner in Old English, though mostly a determiner, since it would have been only rarely used with a verb or preposition. Rather similar to German. I guess then, technically, the genitive personal pronoun was lost, and only the determiner remained, so the paragraph is completely inaccurate, because it says the genitive remained. Confusing. — Eru·tuon 01:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Well it's hard to say, because the genitive pronoun was mīn but the nominative singular (all genders) of the determiner was also mīn. The difference only emerges when you compare it with other Germanic languages. In Gothic, the genitive is meina, the nominative singulars are meins, meina, mein(ata); in Old Norse they are mín and minn, mín, mitt; in Old High German they are mīn and mīner, mīniu, mīnaz. I believe (to be confirmed) that in all of them, the determiner was used in combination with a copula, and so do the modern languages. In modern Dutch, an article is even added in that case: de/het mijne; this leaves little doubt that it's an adjectival form at heart. So presumably the same applies to the English form. CodeCat (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Old English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit regarding OE -> ME shift

I added the following statement in the lead:

The English language made a dramatic shift from a language that was heavily Germanic in vocabulary and grammar, to a blended language known as Middle English combining Romance and Germanic influences.

Ajd raised a concern about this. I wanted to clarify.

Middle English is a radically different language from Old English. Old English is clearly a Germanic language, but not just because of vocabulary. The grammar, including noun declensions and verb conjugation are very clearly Germanic and very similar to modern German. This is not at all true of Middle English. Though ME preserves more of the Germanic grammar than Modern English it was still radically different from Germanic languages and in fact picked up a lot of Romance aspects of grammar, something that does not normally happen with borrowing (borrowing usually involves vocabulary, not grammar). Some linguists in fact categorize Middle/Middle English as a creole of Norman and Old English. One characteristic of a creole is that whereas its vocabulary is borrowed from its parent languages, its grammar is typically much simpler and quite different from either of the parents, something that is very true of ME. Certainly whether to classify it as a creole or not is a matter of debate within the linguistic community, the fact the Norman conquest created a radically altered language that was influenced by Norman in every aspect is not debated.

All of this was the point I was trying to make (succinctly in the lead).

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I see Ajd seems to want to get into a fight over this.
Ajd, your statement that "'blended language' is a major overstatement." is false. That Middle English was drastically influenced by Norman is a widely accepted fact (see [2], [3], [4], and here). Please do your research before making false assertions (and restore my edit).
-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
That Middle English was drastically influenced by Norman is definitely a widely accepted fact; true. That doesn't make it a "blended language". "Blended language" doesn't appear to be a commonplace term, but to me it sounds like it means the same as a mixed language, like Michif or Media Lengua, which Middle English is not. The hypothesis that Middle English is a creole, which you link, isn't necessarily the same as a "blended language", and in any case it's highly controversial, not widely accepted as true, and therefore not a good idea to presume it as true in a mention in passing in an article about a different topic. AJD (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
What are the Romance aspects of grammar that you refer to? — Eru·tuon 20:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Old English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Germanic dialects map

Archeological cultures

This map [5] needs to be removed because it peddles the same myths about the Germanic peoples that were circulated in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For one, how can you draw such clear borders between supposed ancient "Germanic" dialects if no written record of them exists?! Also, archeological evidence show a different picture all together, with many inhabited areas referred to as "cultures' because they can't be linked with certainty to any specific group of peoples. --E-960 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

To be entirely honest, it looks like the inclusion of that map in this article was intended to illustrate only one line in the history section, so I doubt it will be missed. As for your points, I completely agree, it seems to be a bit too detailed, considering how little we know, and the user to have originally uploaded the file on commons gives no basis/sources for its construction. Maybe this map from Ingvaeonic languages is slightly more valid (without concentrating too much on where the boundaries lie), but even then I think it's excessive for one line. Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 20:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The link to the original map from the article is the File:Germanic_dialects_ca._AD_1.png, the chart displayed to the right is the comparison chart which shows that the archeology does not quite match the boundaries of the File:Germanic_dialects_ca._AD_1.png chart. --E-960 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In any case, I was able to locate a chart that relates directly to Old English, so it might be the ideal choice for this article. --E-960 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing the term “Anglo-Saxon?”

 – Discussion is more relevant to the Anglo-Saxons article than the Old English article. TSventon (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The term “Anglo-Saxon” is a problematic one and it has recently fallen out of use by scholars for its adoption by racist and nationalist groups. While the term was in use during the time period, it was not used to refer to a specific ethnic group, and modern assignations are suspect, if not downright incorrect. I’ll leave the decision to those who edit the page, but a dialogue needs to be had, especially since scholars and scholarship are dropping it. I recommend referring to the language as only “Old English.” When referring to people or kingdoms, I recommend “early English,” “early Medieval English,” or “Medieval English,” and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2183:9900:8C6F:D873:E2C8:77C6 (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

the Anglish should go

I want to get rid of the conlang "translation" for the examples, and replace them with English translations. It's ugly, confusing, and ahistorical. Gottistgut (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that it falls between two stools of the original and a comprehensible contemporary English version. I'm not sure what function it is intended to serve in its current form but I am not knowledgeable on the topic an am open to an explanation. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that it should stay as this is an encyclopedia and the original is interesting and educational. I don't think that it is ugly - different, yes. Denisarona (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd also keep them - they allow a non-linguist to better understand how the language relates to modern English. Some sort of disclaimer might be added. Also, Gottistgut, your translations (now reverted) were downright wierd! Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't get it. How does it allow a non-linguist better understanding to say "thede" "ellen" "freme" "sith" "erst" instead of their actual words? That's like just showing them the old english again. It's a translation section, and I highly doubt the usual only-native-modern-english sort would understand those words. What's ugly is the extra bolded translations on top of these words in the page to actually let said people have an understanding; it's not worth it, it's as ridiculous and niche interesting as translating a German or Latin text with constructed English cognates for every word with the actual English translations in bold brackets after each. Sure it's not as far distanced when it's an older form of the same language, but it's the same in principle: worthless. WillWow mc (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
smh. As to the weirdness of my translations, it pales in comparison to the status quo. I was attempting to substantially retain the phrasing and word order of the OE. More elegant translations would require substantial paraphrasing. Gottistgut (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree - no-one is helped by a translation into an artificial language that they almost certainly don't know. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I also prefer Gottistgut's translation, the current one kind of looks like a mess.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Why not show the two different translations? Denisarona (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If we want to demonstrate word-for-wordliness to give MnE speakers a sense of how different OE was to Modern English, it may be desirable to have an interlinear translation into MnE alongside a more natural translation, which would replace the current pseudo-English. This would also free up the "normal" translation to employ more paraphrasing in order to achieve a more natural reading in MnE. Gottistgut (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The conlang "translations" still look atrocious. Gottistgut (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hyperlinks for vowel table

In the vowel table in the phonology section, the vowels aren't hyperlinked to the pages for the corresponding phonemes like the consonants are. Seems like an easy fix but I don't have editing access. Is there a reason why they're not linked?

2600:1700:13C1:93E0:ED6C:3C00:9DCA:9DC2 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done the template {{IPAlink}} is used to link the consonants. Using this on the vowels or diphthongs provides (mostly) links to general pages like Length (phonetics) and Semivowel, which are not specifically about each character and so would not be helpful as links in this context. The one exception is open back rounded vowel [ɒ], already linked underneath the table. If appropriate articles do exist but aren't implemented in {{IPAlink}} then let me know if you need any help making a request for this to be fixed on my talk page. Thanks for the request! — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Angeln

...the Angles acquired their name because their land on the coast of Jutland (now mainland Denmark) resembled a fishhook. Sorry but the homeland of the Angles is the peninsula of Anglia which is in today's Schleswig-Holstein and not in Jutland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arndt1969 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Arndt1969 the article on Jutland explains Jutland can include Schleswig-Holstein. A similar question was answered at Talk:Anglia (peninsula)#Need another map to explain the first map. TSventon (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
If it includes Schleswig-Holstein then the part now mainland Denmark is wrong. Arndt1969 (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Especially since the part in which the Anglia peninsula is located never belonged to today's Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arndt1969 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Arndt1969, thank you for updating the article to remove the inconsistency. TSventon (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Eald english

Eald english (englisċ, pronounced [ˈeŋɡliʃ]), or anglo-saxon,[1] ys the earliest recorded forme of the english language, spoken yn Engelond and southern and eastern scotland yn the early middle ages. It was brought to great britayn by anglo-saxon settlers yn the mid-5th century, and the first eald english literary works date from the mid-7th century. After the norman conquest of 1066, english was replaced, for a tyme, by anglo-norman (a relative of french) as the language of the upper classes. This ys regarded as markyng the ende of the eald english era, synce duryng this period the english language was heavily ynfluenced by anglo-norman, developyng ynto a phase known nowe as middle english yn Engelond and early scots yn scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoesephMama (talk • contribs) 13:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

<cg>

is /ddʒ/ (the pronunciation of <cg>) supposed to be [d͡ːʒ] or [d.d͡ʒ]? bidoof 18:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Consistency between "Ænglisċ" and "Englisċ"

Wiktionary and this article use the spelling "Englisċ", but apparently Old English Wikipedia uses "Ænglisċ". What's up with that?

I feel like Wikimedia needs to be consistent about spelling. What's the general consensus among linguists? Dennis Dartman (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Dartman, individual projects can make their own decisions. Ang:Mōtung:Ænglisc spræc says that Old English Wikipedia uses "ænglisc in cross-wiki links in order to distinguish it more clearly from modern english", even though englisc was more common in the manuscripts. TSventon (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Dennis Dartman (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Old_English/Archive_4&oldid=1204094307"