what's a modern language or dialect you speak that could still be understood by ancient people and what time period? interested to know if any anons can recite ancient text with a household language.pic related is a greek letter from early 3rd century AD.
>>5954037phoenician is fairly understandable to me as someone who speaks both arabic and hebrew, akkadian has some elements i can understand but it's incredibly complex in comparison.
>>5954048I'm not surprised. both are indistinguishable before 1000BC
>>5954048What about aramaic? Which is closer to it, arabic or hebrew?
>>5955457Not him, but Aramaic is more of a family of languages than a language itself. Think something akin to "Romance languages". Different Aramaic languages are going to fall differently on that scope. For instance, the sort of Aramaic used in the Babylonian Talmud is extremely close to Hebrew, and I assume much less close to Arabic. Something like Syriac is probably going to be closer to Arabic, although I haven't done much linguistic study so I could be talking out of my ass on that point.
>>5954037English, about 800ish it starts to get a little iffy.
>>5955880As for me, I may have a hard time consistently understanding most people in England a few generations before William Shakespeare's lifetime.
>>5954037I speak two slav languages, and have enough experience of liturgy that I think I could fake my way through a conversation with people from 1000, at least. The overlap makes it easier for me to come up with proto-slav type words/forms. I have looked at some of the chronicles from a little bit later, and I can understand the gist, even if not every word.
>>5955786>Babylonian Talmud is extremely close to Hebrew>Syriac is probably going to be closer to ArabicProbably not so much about terms of closeness but rather that they possess influences through loans and such.Technically Babylonian Aramaic and Syriac are within the same division of Aramaic languages as opposed to Hebrew and Arabic which are their own language all together.
>>5955880No, you cannot speak Anglo-Saxon just because you speak English.
>>5957541Modern Hebrew is closely linked to arabic
>>5957571Yes we know, and all living and all living Semitic languages are grouped within West Semitic and all aside from the South Semitic ones are within the Central Semitic subdivision. As are do all Afro-Asiatic languages posses kinship to eachother.I also know that Jewish Babylonian Aramaic used the Hebrew alphabet and probably incorporates many loans. What I was getting at is that the Aramaic dialects of Babylon and Syriac are technically closer in their relation being eastern Aramaic languages while Hebrew and Arabic are their own language. Like with English possessing many Latin and Greek loans but still classified as Germanic.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Aramaic_languages
Lithuanian is said to be one of the oldest living languages, but I've seen some say they disagree.I assume there are many languages currently spoken which are probably greatly intelligible with their preceding stage of historical development.
>>5957568I'm saying that middle-english is largely intelligible, spoken and written, and that late old english is reasonably intelligible.
>>5954037>afghanSpeaking Pashayi/Pashai, I truly don’t know the roots of my language and people.
>>5959324I dunno, they don't appear to be comparable in terms of intelligibility.West Saxon Gospels 1175https://studybible.info/WestSaxon1175/Matthew%202Wycliffe Biblehttps://studybible.info/Wycliffe/Matthew%202
>>5959383But that's largely spelling and characters. It just looks odd because of phonetic spelling and the spelling/alphabet reform hasn't happened.
>>5959383Actually looking back and forth between A and B, you're more right. 800 is definitely too early.Where would you say intelligibility ends?
>>5959383Also how the fuck did things change so much in the 200 years between those two translations and stay so relatively the same over the next 800 years?
>>5959428The Wycliffe Bible is from the late 14th century while that Wessex one would be about a century after the Battle of Hastings. I too wonder how intelligible Old English might have been to English people in the late middle ages.
>>5959428Some middle English texts look like they have more Anglic terms in them with a simplified inflection.https://auchinleck.nls.uk/mss/bodysoul.html
>>5954037Most people of scholarly inclination that has Romance languages as mother tongue can read latin without much dictionary consulting, Specially if Italian or Iberoamerican.I can understand most of a latin text, of course some words use the more "archaic" version of it, but thats essentially it, the more archaic or old fashioned words you know the easier is to read latin
>>5959566Romance orthography has diverged some while English spellings of loans preserve greater adherence to classical Latin forms. I don't think it's that simple though.
>>5959597It doesnt matter that the spelling has diverged, as if it mattered to you vowel shifting a*glo
Would it be reasonable to say that the vast majority of English speakers can likely read Middle English but not Old English?
>>5961484I'd think most people could read the medieval form of their language or whichever stage is previous to the modern.
>>5954037I speak aramaic.
I know hebrew and im not even jewish. I just learned it for reading the bible.
>>5962931Studying Hebrew is how (((they))) get you to stop believing in Jesus.
>>5962997>the original language of OT texts should be absolutely ignored cause joos>don't inquire or attempt to do research about anything, dumb serfs, we'll preserve the truth for you hehe
Modern Spanish is ridiculously similar to older Spanish, and fairly similar to vulgar Latin.
>>5963109You mean Andalusi Romance/Mozarabic.
>>5962827Aramaic is from Amarica.
>>5954037>what's a modern language or dialect you speak that could still be understood by ancient people and what time period?Aramaic has already been mentioned in the thread and is an example of this, although it would be more appropriate to speak of ancient texts (about the 1st century) being understandable to modern speakers, not vice versa.>>5955457>What about aramaic? Which is closer to it, arabic or hebrew?That's a complicated question. Because in the golden age of Arabic and since then, both Arabic and Aramaic have had possibly the same amount of mutual influences on each other as Aramaic and Hebrew had had before that. However, the Hebrew writing system is actually Hebrew/Aramaic. In the Babylonian Talmud, Hebrew and Aramaic writings are harmonized, and Mishnaic Hebrew, featured there, is allegedly closer to Aramaic than other kinds of Hebrew are.>>5955786>Not him, but Aramaic is more of a family of languages than a language itself. Think something akin to "Romance languages".It's both a family of languages and a language itself. A better comparison would be to Arabic, Chinese, Italian, and English, where developments in one 'area' or 'community' can be so irrelevant to developments in another 'area'/'community' that direct linguistic interaction is minimal so it seems more like a ladder of languages within a language rather than mere dialects.>For instance, the sort of Aramaic used in the Babylonian Talmud is extremely close to Hebrew, and I assume much less close to Arabic. Something like Syriac is probably going to be closer to Arabic, although I haven't done much linguistic study so I could be talking out of my ass on that point.I'm not sure, but Ancient Syriac is definitely as close to Hebrew as the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud is, generally speaking.>>5957541>Probably not so much about terms of closeness but rather that they possess influences through loans and such.Yes....
>>5957541>Technically Babylonian Aramaic and Syriac are within the same division of Aramaic languages as opposed to Hebrew and Arabic which are their own language all together.It's not a technicality. They are.>>5957571Modern Hebrew's changes were also influenced by Rabbinical writings, which include Aramaic. The word "asuta" is an example, from eastern Aramaic.>>5957611>I also know that Jewish Babylonian Aramaic used the Hebrew alphabet and probably incorporates many loans.The "Hebrew" alphabet is actually the Aramaic alphabet. It was adopted and (I guess) modified for Hebrew from Aramaic as used by pagans. So the use of that alphabet for an Aramaic dialect does not imply that, even though it would have Hebrew loanwords.>>5963142>Aramaic is from Amarica.I assume this is a joke, but no, it's not. Western authors used two words for Aramaic before, Syriac and Chaldee. Then Syriac got used more specifically for Christians' Aramaic, and in particular a dialect of Aramaic that Christian Church fathers spoke and wrote in. So Aramaic became the standard word for the language in English, based on Biblical usage in the original text, in reference to what was called "Chaldee" in English, Biblical Aramaic.
>>5964416And in any case, Syriac is technically synonymous with Aramaic, as Aram is Syria. However, Aram was never used to describe what is now Israel/Palestine, whereas those places were called a part of "Greater Syria" a century ago.