https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english

Passages written in the period, in 100-year increments

“Before the mid 1700s, there was no such thing as standardized spelling. Writers spelled words as they heard them, or as they felt like spelling them, which is why the 1500s and 1600s sections look so alien, even when the words, underneath the surface, are ones you know.”

“As you move backwards in time, the French and Latin loanwords that make up an enormous proportion of the Modern English vocabulary grow fewer and fewer. When you pass 1250, they drop off almost altogether. Where a modern writer would say he underwent torture, a 1200-era writer must say that he suffered pinunge instead”

8 hours ago, swansont said:

“As you move backwards in time, the French and Latin loanwords that make up an enormous proportion of the Modern English vocabulary grow fewer and fewer. When you pass 1250, they drop off almost altogether. Where a modern writer would say he underwent torture, a 1200-era writer must say that he suffered pinunge instead”

the 1300 section seems too easy (in order to ''prove' a point I suspect).

Compare with this page of the Kelmscott Chaucer, with language dating from nearly a century later (and without the ''runes'').

If you mean English as spoken in certain parts of Britain, I don't think I can understand it now !

I heard some Chaucer scholar in college reading Chaucer as he said it would be done in its time period, and it was somewhat intelligible, though it took some help from accompanying text. If you were listening to someone actually speak that way at normal speed of conversation would you catch that "drooocht" was drought if you missed any context earlier? My guess is basic communication you could manage, but you would fall behind fast in more sophisticated chats. As a time traveler you would have to tell people you were from some remote country, to account for your accent and difficulties.

(Full disclosure: I've always had trouble with hearing certain speech sounds - there were characters in "Trainspotting" that I needed subtitles for.)

English is an ever evolving language. As a schoolboy one of the books I had to study for my English literature exam was Chaucer's Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. That would have been published late in the 14th century. Many words had a different but often vaguely linked meaning to those of the present day. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that Shakespeare (1564-1616) is credited with introducing or inventing over 1,700 words!

On 2/22/2026 at 11:38 AM, swansont said:

https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english

Passages written in the period, in 100-year increments

“Before the mid 1700s, there was no such thing as standardized spelling. Writers spelled words as they heard them, or as they felt like spelling them, which is why the 1500s and 1600s sections look so alien, even when the words, underneath the surface, are ones you know.”

“As you move backwards in time, the French and Latin loanwords that make up an enormous proportion of the Modern English vocabulary grow fewer and fewer. When you pass 1250, they drop off almost altogether. Where a modern writer would say he underwent torture, a 1200-era writer must say that he suffered pinunge instead”

Benjamin Franklin, probably one of the most educated citizens of the time, is said to have thought a person was not well educated if he couldn't spell a word several different ways. To standardize things he proposed a new alphabet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin%27s_phonetic_alphabet

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

Benjamin Franklin, probably one of the most educated citizens of the time, is said to have thought a person was not well educated if he couldn't spell a word several different ways. To standardize things he proposed a new alphabet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin%27s_phonetic_alphabet

Why would a different approach to language mean that I understand what a dipshit is when spelt deepmidden?

On 2/22/2026 at 10:38 AM, swansont said:

https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english

Passages written in the period, in 100-year increments

“Before the mid 1700s, there was no such thing as standardized spelling. Writers spelled words as they heard them, or as they felt like spelling them, which is why the 1500s and 1600s sections look so alien, even when the words, underneath the surface, are ones you know.”

“As you move backwards in time, the French and Latin loanwords that make up an enormous proportion of the Modern English vocabulary grow fewer and fewer. When you pass 1250, they drop off almost altogether. Where a modern writer would say he underwent torture, a 1200-era writer must say that he suffered pinunge instead”

On the phonetic side I always found it funny that some words in old and middle English are easier to understand for folks from other language backgrounds rather than native English speakers. As mentioned in the blog this is due to the use of loanwords that were closer to their origin first and then got changed (often in a French way) over time.

One of the words I was always wondering about the origin was "knight" until I saw that in Old English it was pronounced "cniht" (knɪçt), i.e. similar to the the German "Knecht". Pretty obvious in hindsight, if you pronounce knight the Germanic way.

Interesting that knecht means servant. I wonder if the English derivation was based on the idea that a knight serves a lord or king. Germans, OTOH, went with Ritter, which carries the connotation of being a mounted fighter.

Sounds right. Knecht in the military sense was often used to describe levels of foot soldiers, but got elevated to the equivalent of Ritter (mounted but also usually associated with nobility) in English.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why would a different approach to language mean that I understand what a dipshit is when spelt deepmidden?

I fail to understand the question. What does it have to do with Franklin's idea to standardize spelling by doing it phonetically?

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

I fail to understand the question. What does it have to do with Franklin's idea to standardize spelling by doing it phonetically?

DimR makes unusual connections between concepts which sometimes most of us don't follow. I've gotten better over time, but this one escaped me as well. Over to you, Dim.

I luk forwerd to klarifikashen.

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

One of the words I was always wondering about the origin was "knight" until I saw that in Old English it was pronounced "cniht" (knɪçt), i.e. similar to the the German "Knecht". Pretty obvious in hindsight, if you pronounce knight the Germanic way.

Or the Monty Python way.

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

DimR makes unusual connections between concepts which sometimes most of us don't follow. I've gotten better over time, but this one escaped me as well. Over to you, Dim.

I luk forwerd to klarifikashen.

The written language, however presented has a best before date bc it's written, it's like a snapshot in meaning that slowly loses resolution.

After a generation or two, the original meaning can be changed, so that we might think we understand what the words meant and everyone would agree, other than the author.

Orally, language and meaning develop at the same rate bc the error correction is always current.

"I luk forwerd to klarifikashen" looks fine to me (a dislexit). 😉

The title question can be reversed: How far forward in time could've one understood English. Perhaps the answer to this question is much shorter than the original one.

Edited Wednesday at 12:36 PM2 days by Genady

51 minutes ago, Genady said:

The title question can be reversed: How far forward in time could've one understood English. Perhaps the answer to this question is much shorter than the original one.

I have little doubt that an aboriginal ancestestor that started the oral story, would not understand the current version; but if they could they would recognise... 😉

2 hours ago, Genady said:

The title question can be reversed: How far forward in time could've one understood English. Perhaps the answer to this question is much shorter than the original one.

I've heard a linguist speculate that modern media would tend to slow change and make for a more homogeneous language. E.g. we don't expect a resident of 1850 would ever hear someone in 1700 speaking. But, in 2026, we can hear early voice recordings from 1876.

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I've heard a linguist speculate that modern media would tend to slow change and make for a more homogeneous language. E.g. we don't expect a resident of 1850 would ever hear someone in 1700 speaking. But, in 2026, we can hear early voice recordings from 1876.

Yes, we can, but I doubt it is a significant factor.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Or the Monty Python way.

The great vowel shift of Ni!

On 2/25/2026 at 7:35 AM, Genady said:

The title question can be reversed: How far forward in time could've one understood English. Perhaps the answer to this question is much shorter than the original one.

I wonder if Franklin's idea had been widely implemented if that wouldn't slow how language changes over time? The biggest difference over time, it seems to me, is to be how much the vocabulary expands and how use and meanings of words and idioms change.

On 2/25/2026 at 3:40 PM, TheVat said:

I've heard a linguist speculate that modern media would tend to slow change and make for a more homogeneous language. E.g. we don't expect a resident of 1850 would ever hear someone in 1700 speaking. But, in 2026, we can hear early voice recordings from 1876.

Again the resolution will fade over time, both phonetically (as the accent changes) and litterally (as the medium denature), at best it extends the inevitable 'death of useful meaning'.