Could you speak in your homeland if you went back to 1300AD?

[Martim Silva]

English is a bastard language so it is not so difficult to understand why it has changed so much over time while others have not.

However, I find it hard to believe that other languages havent also changed over time.  For example I often heard that the French spoken in Quebec is archaic compared to the French spoken in France as the continental French changed with other influences that did not affect the provincial French of Quebec.

Oh, France in 1300 AD is an interesting place, linguistically speaking...

You see, unlike common perception, there was no such thing as a single language for the country. Modern French comes from the "Langue d'Oil" spoken in the area around the Île de France at the time ('Oil' meaning its word for 'Yes').

The other regions had... different languages. In Brittany, one would speak Breton, in Alsace the Alsatian dialect, in the North another dialect. And in the South... well, the South of France is known as Occitania, and they spoke Occitan, which is a language that enormously shocked me when I first read it.

So, if you went to France in 1300 AD and were in, say, the Dordogne area, you would encounter people who spoke Occitan, not French.

Otoh, the nobles and peasants spoke old Polish, which I could understand.

Let me confirm this: you could communicate with Poles, should you get back to 1300 AD Mazovia?

[alfred russel]

The decades before the Black Death were a bit dismal economically; 1400 might be a better date for the horny time traveller to encounter properly nourished women 

All things considered, I think we are in the golden age.

[Archy]

't would be rather hard to use Dutch in medieval times as the unified language didn't exist back then. Only myriads of dialects that were related to each other and in where a few bigger ones would be used as some kind of over-arching means of communication between those who travelled. That or french or latin obviously.

that said: people with a good knowledge of their dialect might get by pretty well, especially in the case of the west-flemish dialects. They've been proven to still be rather close to their 13th-14th (even earlier) versions in both spelling (in sofar it's written today) and pronunciation.
Hell, the coastal dialects of flemish even have a decent bit in common with the coastal dialects of England of the same latitude.

Like he said if you know some German and local dialect you can prolly help yourself. Medieval Dutch was more alike German in that age you could go from Ostend to Königsberg without the language abruptly changing. Dutch had genitives, dative and used du instead of you, conjugation of verbs is more alike to German.

[Josephus]

ARch....Haven't seen you in a while.

Hey, who's that on your avatar? Is that the one and only David Gilmour??

[grumbler]

You know, if I had been asked before I saw this thread whether it was possible to have an intelligent conversation about a Michael Crichton book, I would have said "no."

'Grats to all.  You have done the impossible!

[crazy canuck]

Oh, France in 1300 AD is an interesting place, linguistically speaking...

You see, unlike common perception, there was no such thing as a single language for the country. Modern French comes from the "Langue d'Oil" spoken in the area around the Île de France at the time ('Oil' meaning its word for 'Yes').

The other regions had... different languages. In Brittany, one would speak Breton, in Alsace the Alsatian dialect, in the North another dialect. And in the South... well, the South of France is known as Occitania, and they spoke Occitan, which is a language that enormously shocked me when I first read it.

So, if you went to France in 1300 AD and were in, say, the Dordogne area, you would encounter people who spoke Occitan, not French.

Even today English is hard to understand.  I was talking about the difference between Quebecois French and the French spoken in France today and reflecting on the fact that there are differences which have occured after only a couple hundred years which makes me suspicious of any claim that other languages have not changed over greater periods of time.

We had a thread about Turkish Delight and how nobody knows what that is except we all read about it in the Narnia books.  English is like that.  It borrows a lot from where ever it goes.  Other languages must have similar influences unless the people speaking it are completely shut off from other cultures/language.

[Eddie Teach]

The decades before the Black Death were a bit dismal economically; 1400 might be a better date for the horny time traveller to encounter properly nourished women 

According to artistic evidence, women have been getting better looking up until the mid 19th century, when they started to fade. Then in the early 20th century, they developed numerous freakish characteristics and no longer appeared human in many cases.

[Martinus]

English is a bastard language so it is not so difficult to understand why it has changed so much over time while others have not.

However, I find it hard to believe that other languages havent also changed over time.  For example I often heard that the French spoken in Quebec is archaic compared to the French spoken in France as the continental French changed with other influences that did not affect the provincial French of Quebec.

Oh, France in 1300 AD is an interesting place, linguistically speaking...

You see, unlike common perception, there was no such thing as a single language for the country. Modern French comes from the "Langue d'Oil" spoken in the area around the Île de France at the time ('Oil' meaning its word for 'Yes').

The other regions had... different languages. In Brittany, one would speak Breton, in Alsace the Alsatian dialect, in the North another dialect. And in the South... well, the South of France is known as Occitania, and they spoke Occitan, which is a language that enormously shocked me when I first read it.

So, if you went to France in 1300 AD and were in, say, the Dordogne area, you would encounter people who spoke Occitan, not French.

Otoh, the nobles and peasants spoke old Polish, which I could understand.

Let me confirm this: you could communicate with Poles, should you get back to 1300 AD Mazovia?

I am not sure Mazovia, tbh, since it had its own fucked up dialect - but I think I could in, say, Greater Poland. I definitely can read 16th century Polish stuff, and it couldn't have been that much different 200 years earlier.

[Fireblade]

English is a bastard language so it is not so difficult to understand why it has changed so much over time while others have not.

However, I find it hard to believe that other languages havent also changed over time.  For example I often heard that the French spoken in Quebec is archaic compared to the French spoken in France as the continental French changed with other influences that did not affect the provincial French of Quebec.

Oh, France in 1300 AD is an interesting place, linguistically speaking...

You see, unlike common perception, there was no such thing as a single language for the country. Modern French comes from the "Langue d'Oil" spoken in the area around the Île de France at the time ('Oil' meaning its word for 'Yes').

The other regions had... different languages. In Brittany, one would speak Breton, in Alsace the Alsatian dialect, in the North another dialect. And in the South... well, the South of France is known as Occitania, and they spoke Occitan, which is a language that enormously shocked me when I first read it.

So, if you went to France in 1300 AD and were in, say, the Dordogne area, you would encounter people who spoke Occitan, not French.

Otoh, the nobles and peasants spoke old Polish, which I could understand.

Let me confirm this: you could communicate with Poles, should you get back to 1300 AD Mazovia?

I am not sure Mazovia, tbh, since it had its own fucked up dialect - but I think I could in, say, Greater Poland. I definitely can read 16th century Polish stuff, and it couldn't have been that much different 200 years earlier.

Fuck, how hard could that be?

TAK TAK TAK GZGZGZGZGZGZGZ

[Barrister]

For Americans, as I reckon nobody knows what kind of language Native Americans used in that era, let us instead say you get transported to the city of London in 1300 AD.

While there has certainly been drift between various language groups shifting boundaries, and at least some drift within language groups, we generally have a pretty good idea what language or languages would have been spoken in a given area.

Thus while I can't be certain if the local language here was an early version of Tuchone, Tagish, or more unlikely Tlingit Han or Kaska, it was one of those.

Actually it's very unliekly to be Tlingit - they are quite recent to the inland areas.

[Razgovory]

The problem with Chauncer there is that this predates some standardization upon spellings.  I don't know if the spelling there is phonetic or not.  It's a bit easier if you use modern standardization to write the words.  Also isn't Chauncer only writing in the London area dialect.  Someone from say, Northumbria might sound completely different.  If it was spoken to me for a while I think I could puzzle out what they are saying in a few days.  Hell there are some current British accents I don't quite understand well.

[Razgovory]

For Americans, as I reckon nobody knows what kind of language Native Americans used in that era, let us instead say you get transported to the city of London in 1300 AD.

While there has certainly been drift between various language groups shifting boundaries, and at least some drift within language groups, we generally have a pretty good idea what language or languages would have been spoken in a given area.

Thus while I can't be certain if the local language here was an early version of Tuchone, Tagish, or more unlikely Tlingit Han or Kaska, it was one of those.

Actually it's very unliekly to be Tlingit - they are quite recent to the inland areas.

Yeah, it's we have a fairly good idea who was in my area around 1300.  Sioux speaking peoples had arrived right a little before that.  Before that would have been a Caddo people.  The French documented the peoples in central Missouri in the mid 17th century so it's not to far from 1300.

[Martim Silva]

However, I find it hard to believe that other languages havent also changed over time.  For example I often heard that the French spoken in Quebec is archaic compared to the French spoken in France as the continental French changed with other influences that did not affect the provincial French of Quebec.

Well, to be honest, I and my friends don't see Québéquois as being that different from mainland French...

I mean, yes, there are different expressions and the pronounciation changes a bit, but we consider those to be very minor. One of my gaming buddies is even bethroted to a girl from Qébéc, and he doesn't see much differences from the "official" French (yes, we notice the differences, but they seem *very* minor to us). She can't even speak anything but Québécquois, but we all undestand her just fine.

I suppose that is because Continental French is really recent. I only see it emerging in force in the 16th century (I can read French books from 1500 AD without problem), and thus for us in Southern Europe the changes it underwent are not significant.

But Occitan is a different story... oh, how what the French are doing to Occitan hurts me. It hurts A LOT. It is absolutely NOT a patois of French.

Of course, all languages get influenced, but at least over here what we do is add the new words to our vocabulary, instead of changing the language. I know the English did otherwise and actually rewrote a lot of their language in the 17th century, though).

I am not sure Mazovia, tbh, since it had its own fucked up dialect - but I think I could in, say, Greater Poland. I definitely can read 16th century Polish stuff, and it couldn't have been that much different 200 years earlier.

That is interesting to hear. Another people that kept its language 

Though note that 200 years is actually a long time... linguistically, in many countries the 16th century is often more distant from the 14th century than our 21st century is from, say, the 18th century.

Let us make a test. Let us say you are in a tavern in Poland, and they started to sing:

Bogurodzica, dziewica, Bogiem sławiena Maryja,    
Twego syna, Gospodzina, matko zwolena Maryja,
Zyszczy nam, spuści nam.    
Kyrieleison.
      
Twego dziela krzciciela, Bożyce,    
Usłysz głosy, napełń myśli człowiecze.    
Słysz modlitwę, jąż nosimy,    
A dać raczy, jegoż prosimy,    
A na świecie zbożny pobyt,    
Po żywocie rajski przebyt.    
Kyrieleison.    

Nas dla wstał z martwych Syn Boży,       
Wierzyż w to człowiecze zbożny,       
Iż przez trud Bog swoj lud odjął diablej strożej       
      
[...]
   
Amen...       
... tako Bog Daj,       
Bychom szli szwyćcy w raj.

How was that? Could you understand it?

[Caliga]

While there has certainly been drift between various language groups shifting boundaries, and at least some drift within language groups, we generally have a pretty good idea what language or languages would have been spoken in a given area.

In the case of where I live, circa 1300 AD a Native American culture called the Fort Ancient culture inhabited Kentucky, which is believed to be the ancestral culture of the Shawnee.  There is a break in the archaeological record that historians believe was caused by an epidemic introduced into the South by de Soto's expedition... apparently disease practically wiped out the Native Americans in Kentucky, and when later explorers arrived in what is now Kentucky it was almost totally deserted--used as a sort of hunting preserve by both the Shawnee and the Cherokee.

[Slargos]

While there has certainly been drift between various language groups shifting boundaries, and at least some drift within language groups, we generally have a pretty good idea what language or languages would have been spoken in a given area.

In the case of where I live, circa 1300 AD a Native American culture called the Fort Ancient culture inhabited Kentucky, which is believed to be the ancestral culture of the Shawnee.  There is a break in the archaeological record that historians believe was caused by an epidemic introduced into the South by de Soto's expedition... apparently disease practically wiped out the Native Americans in Kentucky, and when later explorers arrived in what is now Kentucky it was almost totally deserted--used as a sort of hunting preserve by both the Shawnee and the Cherokee.

So by wiping out the local populations, surrounding tribes were able to thrive on the sudden windfall of - now fat from gorging themselves on human carcasses - animals.

Life finds a way.