Early Modern English

ENGLANDE

oh! i thought this was going to be about http://4ad.mogmedia.cissme.com/tid/043476d4134c57a81c43bd6ab9ea1d6e44575782/dvmcgce/szvyhtle-thumb-jpeg-135x135/jpeg/152556090054.jpg. goddamn that combined new answers screen, making me confuse ILM and ILE.

Bait == eaten.

burp.

I thought someone might make that mistake.

http://imatt.us/mt/archives/orly.JPG

ORLY == LATE MODERN ENGLISH BTW.

The strangeness of early Modern English, such as the example given at the head of the thread, mostly lies in the lack of standard spelling. That didn't really emerge until the late 1700s.

If you just say it aloud, pronouncing it as you normally do, the strangeness drains away, leaving only a mild residue of that olde-timey flavour for added piquancy. Yum!

That's why I love it! It's so loose and informal, like a big "fuck you" to grammarheads (even though I am a grammarhead) -- it's the fluidness of spelling, syntax, etc. that makes it comprehensible even though it violates our strict understanding of formal English. Also, the commas!!

You really must get ahold of The Anatomy of Melancholy by Robert Burton. You will be in hog heaven. It is the zenith of Elizabethan prose style.

Do not (obviously) get an edition that has attempted to modernize his spelling. There is, however, an edition that translates into English all his Latin and Greek tags, which are sprinkled liberally throughout; that is a worthwhile editorial change for those of us unversed in the alchemy of ancient tongues.

It's so loose and informal, like a big "fuck you" to grammarheads (even though I am a grammarhead) -- it's the fluidness of spelling, syntax, etc. that makes it comprehensible even though it violates our strict understanding of formal English.

This is kind of alarmingly backwards! All that fluidity and lack of consensus was precisely the impediment to comprehensibility that led people to standardize.

I know that nabisco

but this is comprehensible! That's what I'm saying! I know some would-be grammarheads who operate under the fallacious assumption that our modern formal, standardized syntax and spelling is the key ingredient that makes language coherent and readable, whereas, you know, that's not really the case if you really speak the language.

(I know, strawman, etc)

Fluency will out.

That's barely even a straw man: there is nobody in the universe who thinks "standardization" comes before "basic fluency" in being able to understand language! More of a straw psych-ward resident.

Especially funny since we still have giant unstandardized differences in spoken language -- being able to read unstandardized spelling isn't really so different from, say, an American being able to understand a heavy Scottish accent.

never mind

I forget if I was actually trying to make a point or more of a "OMG COOL GUYS" thing

also nabisco you haven't seen the Facebook "Good Grammar Is Hot" group, although I think those people may come from another universe

It is cool, definitely! Part of why I mention the accents is that fun deciphering process where you occasionally have to read something aloud-in-your-head and try to hear it in an appropriate accent to sort out what it is.

minor but important distinction: a given individual living then would not have had any more "fluidity of syntax" in their language than somebody does today. they just all wrote (the ones who could) in their own dialects, which individually were as syntactically consistent as the modern standard english dialect is today.

ORLY == LATE MODERN ENGLISH BTW.
After the snow(y owl).

also nabisco you haven't seen the Facebook "Good Grammar Is Hot" group

i'm never gonna go near this, but please tell me more :)

ORLY == LATE MODERN ENGLISH BTW.
After the snow(y owl).

Guize why didn't anyone find this funny I hate you all ;_;

ENGLANDE indeed.