I asked this before elsewhere, but I thought it led to some interesting answers.
As an Egyptian, maybe a little over a thousand years, as that’s when most people started speaking Arabic, though depending on where exactly I am I could luck into an Arab community, in which case I’d last until maybe 1200 years go. Before that it was Coptic and I don’t speak a lick of that.
I’m curious, how much kinship do modern Egyptians feel with the Pyramid-builders? Would you say “we” built the Pyramids, or “they” built the Pyramids?
I wouldn’t be confident going past the 19th century US, personally. English has changed a lot in a short time.
I feel like you could probably make yourself understood all the way back to the American revolution, but anything slangy would be an absolute mess
Maybe, but I don’t think it would be effortless. I would imagine it would be easier for you to understand them than the other way around.
At least 500 years. I think the limit would be somewhere around 600-800, as that’s when the language changed a lot due to foreign trade. I could probably get by in a pinch before 1300, provided everyone spoke really slowly. I don’t speak Norse, but a lot of the words have carried over into my modern language.
Well it’s possible to read Shakespeare without translating - I don’t know how much pronunciation has changed over time but modern English speakers could probably communicate (with varying degrees of difficulty) with any English speaker from US history that could read and write, probably even back to the first colonies. So around 500 years, give or take. I’m curious what it’s like for other countries.
I feel like there is some nuance that’s being lost here. Yes, we can read the words of Shakespeare, but most of the cultural context, and word interplay is lost on all but the most avid fans of Shakespeare.
There’s plenty of times I have been completely lost listening to a conversation between two people that are a couple decades younger than me.
I have no doubt that going back 500 years, I would recognize the words being spoken, but since languages are alive and grow/change constantly, I wouldn’t count on being able to converse with someone easily.
I definitely don’t think you could go back 500 years and talk with people as easily as you could someone today; but, in terms of being able to have basic communication, you don’t really need nuance. I’ve spoken through text with people on the other side of the world whose English is more difficult to understand than early modern English and communicated just fine, even made some real friends. While there would certainly be complexity lost trying to communicate with someone 500 years away, outside of things like complicated conceptual conversations and skilled writing like Shakespeare I really think the majority of communication would be understood well enough by both parties to talk freelyish.
Of course that’s not really including cultural stuff; I’m sure there are plenty of things they could talk about that would go completely over my head and vise versa, particularly younger people with varied slang and trends. But with how a conversation between two young people today can be absolutely baffling, yet I can communicate with them just fine in a different context, I don’t see it being much different for talking with people 500 years ago.
(also, to be clear, I’m talking mainly in regards to text since that’s the only English from 500 years ago I have experience with; I have absolutely no idea how much has changed verbally. if you happen to have any recommendations for resources on pronunciation please let me know, this conversation has me interested!)
Probably around 1800s around this time Philippines would still be under Spain most people would be talking Spanish language, people still speak their local languages but will probably be too deep compared to what we have now. Which has a lot of code switching. Around WW2 killed a lot of Spanish speaking people and most importantly publications that pretty much ended Spanish language in Philippines. Though it was already in decline to due USA directive to use English for everything, including education, present day though we still use borrowed words and some parts of the country even have a creole version of the Spanish language.
As an American, I’ll include England, in which case, it’s really longer than you’d think before you’d need a translator. Shakespeare gets a lot of guff, but it’s important to remember he was writing in a elevated register and everyday vocabulary would be a little easier to parse. The accent itself wouldn’t be that bad, a rhotic accent that hits my American ears with a combination of Cockney, West Country, and a sort of indistinct Irishness, but as David Crystal points out, because it predates much of the geographic splintering caused by the British Isles diaspora in the 17th through 19th centuries, Anglophones from all across the world often find some aspect of it that feels familiar.
Now, Chaucer was before the Great Vowel Shift really got going, so it’s tougher, but I think if you found a motivated conversationalist, you’d adjust quickly enough to function without needing a formal translator. Chaucer influenced written English quite a bit, and he was speaking with a London accent that contributed more to current dialects than some others, so it might be impractical to go much earlier than him. The bigger issues than language itself would really be cultural context and general knowledge of the time and place.
A little over 500-700 years I think.
Which country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikael_Agricola
Agricola’s Finnish is reasonably understandable, so about as far as the records go. 1500’s or so.
Maybe some linguist might have ideas about earlier history, but that’s my guess.
