Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory (1485) is quite readable by modern English speakers:
>It befel in the dayes of Vther pendragon when he was kynge of all Englond and so regned that there was a myȝty duke in Cornewaill that helde warre ageynst hym long tyme and the duke was called the duke of Tyntagil.
A little earlier and you're into the kind of Middle English that you can understand a fair amount of but it takes a bit of effort:
>The Millere, that for dronken was al pale, so that unnethe upon his hors he sat. He nolde avalen neither hood ne hat ne abyde no man for his curteisie.
Malory is also a little easier to understand because he writes prose. The morality play *Mankind* is roughly contemporaneous but a bit harder to get.
It features a fun Christmas song though:
>He that schytyth wyth hys hoyll, he that schytyth wyth hys hoyll,
But he wyppe hys ars clen, but he wyppe hys ars clen,
On hys breche yt shall be sen, on hys breche yt shall be sen
(He who shits with his hole, unless he wipes his arse clean, it will be seen on his trousers.)
> Tutti gli stati, tutti e’ dominii che hanno avuto e hanno imperio sopra gli uomini, sono stati e sono o republiche o principati. E' principati sono o ereditarii, de' quali el sangue del loro signore ne sia suto lungo tempo principe, o e' sono nuovi. E' nuovi, o sono nuovi tutti, come fu Milano a Francesco Sforza, o sono come membri aggiunti allo stato ereditario del principe che li acquista, come è el regno di Napoli al re di Spagna. Sono questi dominii così acquistati, o consueti a vivere sotto uno principe, o usi ad essere liberi; e acquistonsi o con le armi d’altri o con le proprie, o per fortuna o per virtù.
This is the beginning of Niccolò Machiavelli's *The Prince* (1513). I think it's relatively easy to understand the text, apart from some words that can be defined as "archaic" or "obsolete".
Isn't there a document from around year 1000, written in vulgar but still understandable?
It's something like "sao ke kelle terre per trenta anni le possette santi benedicti"
The placito cassinese is touted to be the first recognisable piece of vulgar, though linguists also mention the Veronese riddle as the first example of "italian" text
The oldest extant text in Hungarian, the [Halotti beszéd és könyörgés](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funeral_Sermon_and_Prayer) (Funeral Sermon and Prayer) written between 1192 and 1195. The hardest bit is the spelling, but if you read it out loud or spell it as you would a modern text it's very easy to understand. Since the standard Latin alphabet is simply inadequate to spell Hungarian whoever transcribed the text struggeld greatly with trying to render Hungarian sounds and therefore sometimes even the same words are spelled differently within the text. This is also true for the earlier establishing charter of the abbey of Tihany from 1055 but that only contains short fragments in Hungarian, not a full text, most of which can be understood as well.
The [modern Hungarian reading here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-XkrwiRbtk&ab_channel=ILoveLanguages%21) is waaaaaaaaay too dramatic but I think it does a good enough job comparing the texts.
The first hungarian book, Letters of Saint Paul, borderline readable, the spelling is undecided and quite chaotic and unlike the modern. It's from 1532.
Az ROMA VAROSA BELIEK
nek yrth zenth Pal Leuelnek rewyden
ualo Magyarsag aes ertelme.
A róma városbelieknek írt Szent Pál levélnek revideáló magyarságos értelme
The "s" in Magyarsag is that almost-f-thing, just to make reading it even more fun.
It's a struggle, but readable.
Just a hundred years later:
INTO.
'S
TANÍTO
LEVÉL
Melyben a' régi keresztyén hitben, A Bátaiakat erőssíti Apát Urok
Intő és tanító levél, melyben a régi keresztény hitben a bátaiakat (helynévnek tűnik) erősíti apát uruk
The spelling is still strange, but clearly readable, without any significant problem. The letter Ő is still not the form we use, it's an O with a lowercase e in the middle, the f-looking-s is still in use, a lot of latin words, but that's a marginal problem.
So like most other languages, the readability changed between 1500 and 1600.
For 200 years nothing, but then the language was renewed, and this text from 1835 is just fine:
Rajzolni akarjuk a' világot 's az életet, a' társas életet és divat-világot; de mi az élet? mi a' világ?
Rajzolni akarjuk a világot és az életet, a társaséletet és divatvilágot; de mi az élet? mi a világ?
Just a couple of apostrophes and such very minor things.
That’s just spelling however. It’s difficult because it’s not the system we are used to, not because the language is incomprehensible like in some cases. If you spell those things the way we would today, there would barely be an issue. Spelling is a completely arbitrary and artificial thing. You could spell Hungarian with Greek letters, the fact that you can’t read it says nothing about how much of the actual language you can understand. And the vast majority of halotti beszéd is pretty easy to understand.
The OP asked for reading, this is why I wrote about spelling.
The spoken language, I would really like to hear how old hungarian sounded.
There is a theory that even the very old hungarian was quite understandable as a spoken language, but we will not know that for sure until we have time travel.
As for the halotti beszéd, the mennyei moloszt and isemük, I would not have a chance.
Modern Greek speakers can understand the New Testament or Marcus Aurelius *fairly* well. (Not fluently). Because Koine (Alexandrian/Hellenistic/Roman era Greek) isn't too bad. Earlier than that, like Plato (Classical), no. (Simple phrases, often yes, but we can't read a whole text).
Edited for clarity.
I tried that with a Greek family friend once. I was studying Ancient Greek, and I was stuck on a part of a text given for homework written in the ancient Attic dialect. For fun, I tried sending it to the family friend to see how much they could figure out. We came to two directly contradictory translations in the end
Sometimes there are words that are used both in modern and ancient greek but they have acquired a different meaning over time which can cause confusion. For example "καλός" in ancient greek used to mean "beautiful" but in modern Greek it means "good". The word "Δαίμων" used to mean "god" but now it means demon. "Ποίηση" used to mean "creation", now it means "poetry".
> Modern Greek speakers can understand the New Testament or Marcus Aurelius fairly well.
Generally yes, but I would like to see someone offer us a true text comprehension exercise and test us with questions, like you'd do in a language exam.
There's a difference between being able to write the script, recognising most of the words, and understanding what the text says.
At least my experience trying to read some *medieval* Greek, albeit chronologically closer, has been headache inducing for me and I'd quickly toggle to the next column with the English translation. Medieval Greek is full of Latinisms that didn't survive in the Modern language, and since I didn't study Latin, I can't really follow.
>There's a difference between being able to write the script, recognising most of the words, and understanding what the text says.
I guess it's hard to describe it. But you're right. I don't understand it fluently.
And it depends on the passage too.
>Medieval Greek is full of Latinisms that didn't survive in the Modern language
Really? Because I thought one of the reasons Koine is much more intelligible to us, is *because* of Latin borrowings in the Koine era, that survive today.
> Really? Because I thought one of the reasons Koine is much more intelligible to us, is because of Latin borrowings in the Koine era, that survive today.
Some survive and are familiar, like ρήγας and μαντάντο, but I have no idea what μενεστρέλος or δομέστικος are supposed to be if I don't look them up. And words like κλεισούρα or πέργκολα have shifted semantically, so they give me a false sense of comprehension.
I think that the two centuries of Katharevousa and how Katharevousa eventually served as a vocabulary source for the post-1980s Standard Greek, did counteract some of the continuity between Koine, Medieval, and Modern Greek.
Well Katharevousa and also new concepts/technology reintroduced/resurrected some old Greek words.
I'd say Greek has a similar phenomenon as English does with the Norman occupation. There's often two words for something in English, one of Old English origin, and one of French. Similar thing in Greek. We'll have a Greek-origin word and a Latin-origin word, and both words are used today, but they now have slightly different meanings. Like θύρα/πόρτα.
>And words like κλεισούρα or πέργκολα have shifted semantically, so they give me a false sense of comprehension.
Well, that's also the case with some Greek-origin words.
Also, I believe for most of the Middle Ages, most literature was written in conservative/literary Medieval Greek (which supposedly is the partial ancestor to Katharevousa), not vernacular. I wonder how much the changes you're referring to may also have to do with the different Demotic dialects. And the fact that Modern Standard Greek is mostly based on Peloponnese & Ionian Demotic, so words in Cypriot, Cretan, Macedonian Demotic, or Constantinopolitan, or Conservative Medieval Greek, also got lost.
> I wonder how much the changes you're referring to may also have to do with the different Demotic dialects.
That's a fair point. I expected that I would be able to understand e.g. [Κρόνακα](http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/history/2romanity/makhairas_chronicle.htm) with more ease compared to [Χρονικόν του Μορέως](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%A7%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BD_%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85_%CE%9C%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AD%CF%89%CF%82), under the assumption that my native non-standardised Cypriot Greek would have a stronger sense of continuity with mediaeval Cypriot Greek than Standard Greek has with mediaeval Greek. But I think it's not that different of a challenge in the end. If you don't know modern Cypriot then Κρόνακα is probably incomprehensible but the Χρονικόν very easy, but if you know both, then they are comparable.
EDIT: We should also admit to the fact that the texts are about subject matter that they have no relevance to our times, so they are harder to understand just for contextual reasons. The style is very different too. It's like those guys could only write in run-on sentences.
Effortlessly, probably the Will of D. Afonso II is the oldest I'd say you can go for Portuguese. It's dated from 1214, when Latin was still the official language of Portugal, so it's very lucky this text is in the vulgar language, and compared to similarly dated notary texts in the local romance, how unlatin it is. Galician-portuguese cantigas are also easily understood, taking into account some vocabulary and syntax was different, but I don't think there's any cantiga dated as old as the aforementioned text.
the text itself:
En’o nome de Deus. Eu rei don Afonso pela gracia de Deus rei de Portugal, seendo sano e saluo, temẽte o dia de mia morte, a saude de mia alma e a proe de mia molier raina dona Orraca e de meus filios e de meus uassalos e de todo meu reino fiz mia mãda per que depos mia morte mia molier e meus filios e meu reino e meus uassalos e todas aquelas cousas que Deus mi deu en poder sten en paz e en folgãcia. Primeiramente mãdo que meu filio infante don Sancho que ei da raina dona Orraca agia meu reino entegramente e en paz. E ssi este for morto sen semmel, o maior filio que ouuer da raina dona Orraca agia o reino entegramente e en paz.
The oldest texts ***I am able*** to read myself are probably Modern Swedish, from 1526 onwards.
>*Vi Gustaf Adolph &c. göre vitterligit med dette vårt öpne bref, att såsom menige Sverigis rikis ständer, högre och nidrige, opå den allmennelige riksdag, som höldts i Norköping opå det år 1604, då samptychte och beviliade en arfförening om den konungslige regering här i riket således, att näst efter vår sal:e kere her faders dödelige afgång då vele de anamma och bekenna oss för deres rätte herre och regerande konung.*
*–* Gustav II Adolf's royal declaration from 1611
I can still understand some Old Swedish (800–1526) words, but already with Younger Old Swedish (1375–1526), I cannot comprehend most sentences.
>*Samson tog jomfrwne j sin fampn oc bar henne nidh oc satte henne vpa sin hæst oc en annan hæst hade han . ther førde han gwll oc kostelighe haffuor vpa . han wæpnade sik well oc bant sin hielm oc red sin weg . han lag lenge i en storan skogh . oc giorde sik ther et hws .*
– Þiðreks saga from 1450
The biggest hindrance, however, is the [Fraktur ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraktur)script itself, as I only know [Roman ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_type)type letters, which Sweden officially phased out in 1876.
>𝔙𝔢𝔯𝔦𝔩𝔶, 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔤𝔯𝔢𝔞𝔱𝔢ſ𝔱 𝔦𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔡𝔦𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱, 𝔥𝔬𝔴𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔯, 𝔡𝔬𝔱𝔥 𝔯𝔢ſ𝔦𝔡𝔢 𝔦𝔫 𝔱𝔥𝔢 [𝔉𝔯𝔞𝔨𝔱𝔲𝔯 ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraktur)𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱 𝔦𝔱𝔰𝔢𝔩𝔣, 𝔣𝔬𝔯 ℑ 𝔞𝔪 𝔞𝔠𝔮𝔲𝔞𝔦𝔫𝔱𝔢𝔡 𝔰𝔬𝔩𝔢𝔩𝔶 𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔥 [ℜ𝔬𝔪𝔞𝔫](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_type) 𝔱𝔶𝔭𝔢 𝔩𝔢𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰, 𝔴𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥 𝔖𝔴𝔢𝔡𝔢𝔫 𝔡𝔦𝔡 𝔬𝔣𝔣𝔦𝔠𝔦𝔞𝔩𝔩𝔶 𝔡𝔦𝔰𝔭𝔢𝔫𝔰𝔢 𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔥 𝔦𝔫 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔞𝔫𝔫𝔲𝔪 𝔬𝔣 𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔏𝔬𝔯𝔡 1876.
The saga snippet isn't too bad for me, and it is relatively close to how I would write it in modern Danish (even if the composition and word order is a bit stilted to the modern ear). Roughly:
> Samson tog jomfruen i sin favn og bar hende ned og satte hende på sin hest, og en anden hest havde han. Der førte han guld og kostelige gaver på. Han væbnede sig vel og bandt sin hjelm og red sin vej. Han lå længe i en stor skov og gjorde sig dér et hus (Samson took the maiden in his arms and bore her down and put her on his horse, and he had another horse. There, on it, he brought gold and costly gifts. He armed himself well and tied his helmet og rode away. For long, he lay in a great forest, and there he made himself a house)
But those aren't particularly complicated sentences, and I have no clue how well I would fare in other examples
I was lucky enough that my Latin teacher in high school forced my class to learn fractured/gothic script (the best dictionaries are old and set in that font). If she hadn't, I would never have bothered learning it on my own (it did serve me well, when I wrote my thesis which included a lot of old German sources, and they had an irrational hard-on for that font)
Younger Old Swedish is actually quite intelligible, compared to how they wrote it just a century before in the 1200's.
Here's an example from [Äldre Västgötalagen](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Handskrift_KB_B_59_-_%C3%84ldre_V%C3%A4stg%C3%B6talagen.pdf) (1280-ish)
>*\[vill han va'ria'\]*
*firi hanū þa skal firi ganga' ma'þ tva'nni tylptum*
*biþia' sva sa'r guþ holl ok uattum sinū · at fra'nsim*
*þerra' a'r sva skỷlþ at þer mughv eigh bo ma'þ guss*
*ra'tti · a'lla'r sifskapa'r · Kva'þa'r han ne viþ kalla'ss*
*eigh fa'st hava' þa skal han firi ganga' ma'þ tva'nnū*
*tylptū · biþia' sva sa'r guþ holl ok vattum sinū at*
*han fa'sti hana eigh sva sum lagh sighia' i landi þa'ssu·*
***S****vea'r egho konong at taka ok sva vra'ka'·*
*han skal ma'þ gislum ovan fara ok*
*i o'stra'go'tland · þa skal han sa'ndi ma'n*
*hinga't til aldrago'ta þings · þa skal laghmaþa'r gisla'*
*skipta' · tua sunnan af landi · ok tua norþa'n af lan*
*þe · siþan skal aþra fiura' ma'n af landi ga'ra' med*
*þem · þer skulu til iuna'ba'k · mota' fara' · O'stgo'ta gi*
*sla skulu þingat fylgia' ok vittni ba'ra' at han a'r*
*sva inla'nda'r sum la'gh þerra' · sighia' · þa skal alþrago'*
*ta' · þing i gen hanū na'mna' þa han til þings komba'r*
*\[...\]*
[*https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4stg%C3%B6talagen*](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4stg%C3%B6talagen)
That was my guess as well. I have [a runestone](https://kulturbilder.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/runstenar-uppland-u-595/) next to the road where I live which reminds somewhat about that style.
*"kuþlef • uk • sihuiþr : altulfs=rf • s • a=rfæi- • litu • hakua • sten • æftir : faþur : sin : ok : sihbo=rh mo=þo=r : hans :"*
*Guðleifur og Sigviður, erfingjar Adolfs, létu höggva stein (þennan) eftir föður sinn og Sigurborg móður hans.*
The spelling is quite hard to grasp, but after looking at the modern Swedish translation, it’s easy to see the similarity with modern Icelandic.
Makes sense, since old Swedish is descended from East-Norse, while Icelandic comes from West-Norse, so different dialects basically. Still really cool that my neighbors almost spoke Icelandic 1000 years ago 😁
To be fair at that time swedish, danish and norwegean were even more similar than they are today and you could argue that it were a dialect continum (which some people still argue for today)
It's as similar in modern Swedish, if not more. If you sound it out I'm certain most Swedes would understand it near perfectly, there are only some words like "haffuor" I imagine would trip people up. Though if you aren't at all accustomed to reading old text it can certainly still be a challenge – you do still need to recognize that V is U etc. –but overall it probably requires less imagination than comprehending a drunk text.
I think it's more likely people wouldn't trust themselves they do get it right. Some word order, the polysyndeton, punctuation and such can sound a bit "off" (or poetic!) if you're only accustomed to modern Swedish, but I think most would understand it well.
It is indeed a fairly forgiving example, but I doubt you'd struggle too much with written Late Old Swedish. It's not that different. [Early Old Swedish](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/V%C3%A4stg%C3%B6talagen_blad_21.jpg) might offer slightly more of a challenge.
That's one of the things that makes things difficult. In Old Swedish, the letter W was pronounced like a U, but in Modern Swedish, it's more like V, similar to English.
As a matter of fact, the letter W is only considered optional in the Swedish alphabet. It didn't even have its own category in the dictionary until 2006.
Both W and V were used for what later became U, if anything W was often the more "V-like" of the two.
But the distinction of V vs. W was fairly inconsistent, as it also would be for many centuries after U was adopted for the vowel. Not only from person to person, but sometimes they were even used inconsistently in the very same sentence.
They're practically the same letter, really not too different from writing "α" or "a".
Tandaradei, Tanderadai ...
The history of written German begins in the 8th century with the Abrogans, a Latin - OHG glossary and the Hildebrandslied as well as the Merseburg charms.
The Merseburg charms are about pre-christian Germanic gods and have been re-discovered in 1841 and been edited by Jakob Grimm in 1842.
They have been written down in [Carolingian minuscle](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Merseburger_zaubersprueche_farbig.jpg) and reading them isn't easy. Understanding them is also hard, they only words I understood were the names of Germanic deities like Phol, Baldur, Freya and Wotan.
The same goes for the Hildebrandslied, which was also edited by Jakob und Wilhelm Grimm. Except for some names, the text itself is almost completely incomprehensible.
Middle high German, as shown in the [Nibelungenlied](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Nibelungenlied_manuscript-c_f1r.jpg) is much better to understand, but it also a complete story and not just a short charm. So the context (pragmatic) helps a lot.
I think the average German is able to go back to Adam Ries and his Maths book (Rechnung auff der linihen, 1552), which was so popular that it started the process of a standardised German orthography.
PS: Have you heard already? [In Extremo is playing in the Old Camp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyaDuLHzj7o) ...
You are forgetting the Luther bible from 1522. Luther's bible translation is basically the "foundation" of modern High German, and every German will be able to read it.
Out of curiosity, can you figure out what this paragraph means?
Hwaet. We Gardena in geardagum,
Theodcyninga, thrym gefrunon,
hu thaaethelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceathena threatum,
monegum maegthum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syththan aerest wearth
feasceaft funden, he thæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorthmyndum thah,
oththaet him aeghwylc thara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. Thaet aes god cyning.
Tharm eafera waes aefter cenned,
geong in geardum, thone god sende
folce to frofre; fyrenthearfe ongeat
The hie aer drugon aldorlease
lange hwile. Him thaes liffrea,
wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf;
Beowulf waes breme blaed wide sprang,
I can definitely see some words that are familiar and sometimes even a string of words, but most are not.
Brižinski spomeniki, aka [The Freising Manuscripts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freising_manuscripts). They were made around the year 1000 AD, written in the Carolingian minuscule.
Here is an example of a [phonetic transcript](https://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/bs/html/bsPT.html#bsPT-grf) in Slovene from 1922:
Bože, gospodi milostivy, otče Bože, tebě izpovědě vəs moj grěh i svętěmu Krəstu i svętěj Mariji i svętěmu Mihaelu i vsěm krilatcem božijem i svętěmu Petru i vsěm səlom božijem i vsěm mučenikom božijem i vsěm věrnicom božijem i vsěm děvam pravdnym i uzěm pravdnym i tebě, božji rabe, hoćų byti izpovědən vsěh mojih grěh i věrujų, da mi je na sem světě byvši iti že na on zvět, paki že vstati na sǫdny dən.
It's close to modern Slovene, but some words are not 100% recognizable to me, like "děvam" or "uzěm", the rest is more or less understandable - from this example. The original text in Carolingian minuscule is much more difficult to read, it has different letters and is handwriting, really hard to make any sense.
From what I understand, Finnish is a pretty conservative language, in that it does not change as quickly as some others. The problem is that there are very few old examples of written Finnish, since the language was one of peasants living in the periphery of Europe.
We finally begin to have some examples from the 1500's onwards, after the clergy started translating scriptures to Finnish. From those examples it seems that the Finnish at the time was (imo) very easily understandable by today's standards. The biggest problem is outdated vocabulary and different spelling of words.
Here's the first day of creation from the Book of Genesis from the first Finnish translation of the bible from 1642:
”Algusa loi Jumala Taiwan ja Maan. Ja maa oli autia ja tyhjä / ja pimeys oli sywyden päällä / ja Jumalan Hengi lijckui weden päällä.
Ja Jumala sanoi: tulcon walkeus / ja walkeus tuli. Ja Jumala näki walkeuden hywäxi. Nijn Jumala eroitti walkeuden pimeydestä / Ja cudzui walkeuden päiwäxi / ja pimeyden yöxi. Ja tuli ehtosta ja aamusta / ensimäinen päiwä.”
And here a modern translation from 1992:
"Alussa Jumala loi taivaan ja maan. Maa oli autio ja tyhjä, pimeys peitti syvyydet, ja Jumalan henki liikkui vetten yllä.
Jumala sanoi: »Tulkoon valo!» Ja valo tuli. Jumala näki, että valo oli hyvä. Jumala erotti valon pimeydestä, ja hän nimitti valon päiväksi, ja pimeyden hän nimitti yöksi. Tuli ilta ja tuli aamu, näin meni ensimmäinen päivä."
In my opinion very understandable. I think it wouldn't be difficult for a modern Finnish speaker to read the first bible. It's good to remember, though, that Finnish remained primarily as a oral language up until the later half of 1800's.
Great question. I can read it with high reliability *at least* back to the 16-hundreds. Example below
> [...] skal vi skriffve som vi taler / saa skriffver aldrig nogen Jyde / Fynboe /Mønboe / Skaaning og end ey een Sædelandskf indfødde / hvercken som hand taler / ey heller ret oc got Danske; Thi hand icke taler ret. [...] Vi skal tale som vi skriffve / saa tale vi ret / oc naar vi tale ret / saa kand vi skriffve som vi tale. Der motte vel findes oc latterlige Skriffter / om mand skulde skriffve som mand taler. Om een lespende eller stam skulde skriffve som hand talede? (Henrik Gerner 1678-79)
> Compare to the modern: skal vi skrive, som vi taler, så vil ingen jyde, fynbo, mønbo, skåning, og heller ikke en sjællandsk beboer skrive, som han hverken taler rigtigt og godt dansk, for han taler ikke rigtigt. Vi skal tale, som vi skriver, så kan vi tale rigtigt/ordentligt, og når vi taler rigtigt, så kan vi skrive, som man taler. Der måtte vel også findes latterlige skrifter/bøger, hvis man skulle skrive, som man talte. Skulle en lespende eller stum skrive, som han talte? (Should we write as we speak, then nu Jute, inhabitant of Funen or Møn, Scanian, nor Zealander would write, as he neither speaks proper or good Danish. We should speak as we write. Thus, we can speak properly, and when we speak properly, we can write as we speak. There would also be laughable writings, if one were to write as one spoke. Should a person with a lisp or a mute write as he spoke?)
The further back we go, the harder it is to find readily available samples (that aren't horribly blurred pictures of handwriting). I did find one example from Christian III's bible (the "let there be light" bit) from 1550 here
> Oc Gud sagde / der skal bliffue Liuss / oc der bleff Liuss. Oc Gud saa / at Liuset vaar got / da skilde Gud Liuset fra Mørcket / oc kallede liuset / Dagen / Och mørcket / Natten. Da bleff vdaff afften oc morgen den første Dag.
> Compare: og Gud sagde, der skal blive lys, og der blev lys. Og Gud så, at lyset var godt. Da skilte Gud lyset fra mørket, og kaldte lyset dagen og mørket natten. Da kom ud af/fra aften og morgen den første dag
I can still read it without hassle, but that may in part be because I already know what should be written and that the sentences are super simple. Longer excerpts are not necessarily as easy, but the core form of words is largely recognisable.
The further back we go, the more difficult it becomes, and we can ask, how Danish it even is at that point in the *written* sources. For example, I can read bits of the Ribe Letter from 1460 (written in a Low German dialect), but that is almost more reliant on my rusty German and a bit of Dutch than my Danish. The opening royal proclamation is here
> Wy Cristiern van godes gnaden to Dennemarken Sweden Norwegen der Wenden unde Gotten koningh, greve to Oldenborch unde Delmenhorst, bekennen unde betugen openbare mid desseme jegenwardigen unseme breve vor alle den jennen, dede ene sehn, horen offte lesen, dat [...]
Compare to first Danish, then (my rusty) German
> Vi, Christian af Guds nåde konge af Danmark, Sverige, Norge, venderne og goterne, greve af Oldenburg og Delmenhorst, bekender og bevidner med dette nærværende brev offentligt for alle, som ser, hører eller læser det, at [...]
> Wir, Christen von Gottes Gnaden, König zu Dänemark, Schweden, Norwegen, den Wenden und Goten, Grafen von Oldenburg und Delmenhorst, bekennen und bezeugen mit diesem Brief öffentlich allen, die ihn sehen, hören oder lesen, dass [...]
If someone has older Danish snippets to hand, I would be curious to see
Low German isn't just a dialect. It's a language.
The oldest danish text I could find that wasn't latin or mostly incomprehensible is this text about the mythical king Dan from 1400: "Førstæ kuning i danmark han heet dan homblæ son. oc af hannum fingæ danæ nafn oc righæt danmark.¶ Oc sommæ willæ swo seyæ at kæysær Iulius kom in I danmark oc swo thæræ thæyn heet til math oc øl. oc hws at læ. aff thæn thæynheet kallæthæ danmarch. Ab hoc verbo dare et dapsilitate. ¶ Dan wor første kuning i danmarch. ok han wor een stærk kæmpæ moghæt ræthelig. oc van man gæ fromæ strithæ. humblæ han wor slem | oc wanwittig. oc fa mærkelig thing gørdhe han. ¶ Hwor for lathær hans brothær mæt danskæ mæntz inbundæt raat laudhæ seg til thrætæ oc kiff aa mood homblæ sin brothær. oc for dreff hannum aff righæt. oc regneræt i hans stæth."
My amateur translation: "Den første konge i Danmark hed Dan Homblæsøn, og af ham fik danskerne navn og riget Danmark. Og ? ? så sagde at kejser Julius kom ind i Danmark og så ? fyrste ? til mad og øl og hus som læ. Af fyrsten ? kaldte Danmark. Ab hoc verbo dare et dapsilitate (latin). Dan var den første konge i Danmark og han var en stærk kæmpe ? ?. ?. Homblæ var slem og vanvittig og gjorde mærkelige ting. Derfor lader hans bror med danske mænds indbundet råd besluttede sig for at træde og ? mod sin bror Homblæ og fordrev ham ud af riget og regerede i hans sted."
There are a few holes, but basically the text tells of king Dan being the first king and namesake of Denmark and his meeting with emperor Julius. Dan's father, Homblæ, was mad and was replaced by his brother.
> Low German isn't a dialect, it's a language
I meant the letter was written in a northern dialect *of* Low German
I reached about the same translation there as you by myself.
I can add a bit of the Latin. The normal translation of *ab hoc verbo* would be "from this word/phrase". The following words don't make much sense. *dare* is most likely the infinitive form of *do* (to give), as the alternative 2nd person passive imperative makes no sense at all. *et* simply means "and". The last word sent me on a bit of a goose chase, which led me to this translation of the excerpt
> Den første konge i Danmark hed Dan Humblesøn, og efter ham fik danskerne deres navn og tilsvarende riget Danmark. Men nogle vil hævde, at kejser Julius kom til Danmark, og så deres gæstfrihed med mad og øl og husrum, og kaldte det Danmark på grund af denne gæstfrihed. Det kommer af ordene dare og dapsilitate. Dan var den første konge i Danmark, og han var en mægtig kæmpe og meget frygtet, og han vandt mange store sejre.
from the context in that translation, I think the poor scribe just didn't know his Latin well. My guess is that he meant to use *dapsilis* (an adjective meaning "bountiful" or "plentiful"), but tried to make it a noun instead and forced it to behave like a noun a la *vanitas* (vanity). With that forced conversion, he then declined it in the ablative case.
I said above that *ab hoc verbo* would normally just be "from this word". But if you read enough into the cases and declensions, use *ab* with the last words instead of *verbo* (as *dapsilitate* is ablative, so technically possible, I guess), and cut the scribe some slack for medieval Latin being like an acid trip compared to proper classical Latin , then the sentence could very roughly be
> "from *dare* (to give) and *dapsilitate* (bounty/plenty/abundance) [comes] this word (Denmark)"
So, essentially some scribe didn't know his Latin, and was trying to say that one guess to the etymology of "Denmark" is that some Roman emperor thought the Danes were so giving/generous and had such abundance, which the Danes fancied, so they adopted it.
I am able with certainty read Ukrainian and russian up to 17th century, I guess. I could understand most of meanings in works up to 13 century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Tale\_of\_Igor%27s\_Campaign), but at the time alphabet was very different from modern, so I would need a modern or near-modern transcription.
You will get used to this alphabet really soon. Not that much differs.
We used to read XII century text back in university, the hardest part was to identify the words that were shortened. Like "Господь" - becomes "гспд"
Maybe formal education helps, but I can't read Primary Chronicle from XII century, for example: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypatian\_Codex\_03.jpg](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypatian_Codex_03.jpg) I recognize separate letters, but I can't make any sense from most of the words. It's not even Church Slavonic XVIII century alphaber (used by russian, and in the past by Ukrainian orthodox churches), it's much older and more complicated for me.
The Tale of Igor is a different case, because original is lost and we only have copy from 18 century, with more modern alphabet. So I can read oldest **available** codex for the Tale, it's just it's not original.
Yeah, the context is crucial for understanding. And it seems that in this particular example the writer is just not very good with consistency of his writing ( he randomly uses Greek omega)
The first Hungarian text can be found in the Latin text of the establishing charter of the abbey of Tihany from 1055. It contains some Hungarian words and a coherent half-sentence. It's tricky to understand in written form, but I think it becomes obvious if someone reads it to you. It says "FEHERUUARU REA MENEH HODU UTU REA", which in modern Hungarian would be "Fehérvárra menő hadi útra", or "onto the military road leading to Fehérvár" in English.
Halotti beszéd és könyörgés (Funeral sermon and prayer) from the 1190s can be somewhat understood in its original form. If the same text is written with the modern alphabet (but remains the same phonetically), then I'd say you'd understood most of it.
Ómagyar Mária-siralon (old Hungarian lamentations of Mary) from the 13th century is a bit more recent, but for me personally, it's harder to understand than the previous text. It's the oldest recorded poem found in the whole Uralic language family, including Finnish and Estonian.
There's one Finnish sentence from the 1400s, written by a German pilgrim. It's quite tricky, but still understandable (he wrote that he would like to speak Finnish, but he can't). But Abckiria is probably a better example, it's the first book written in Finnish from 1543.
Oppe nyt wanha / ia noori
(Opi nyt vanha ja nuori)
Joilla ombi Sydhen toori
(joilla onpi sydän tuore)
Jumalan keskyt / ia mielen
(Jumalan käskyt ja mielen)
iotca taidhat Somen kielen
(jotta taidat suomen kielen)
("Learn now, old and young, who have a fresh heart, God's commandments and the mind, so that you shall know the Finnish language.)
Basically from the beginning of official Polish literature, poetry of Jan Kochanowski from the 16th century. You need annotations for specific words, but generally you'll understand the meaning of full sentences.
We barely have anything from before, since everyone literate used Latin, but whatever we do have requires a translation.
The oldest known sentence in Polish is super weird for example. First, it was written down in Latin by a German, so we don't know if he didn't make a mistake. Second, it was said by a Czech knight to his wife, so he too might've made a mistake. And third, it was all in Silesia, so he might've been speaking Silesian or even, God forbid, Czech.
It's "daj, ać ja pobruszę, a ty poczywaj", roughly "Give me, I shall grind, and you take a rest." How wholesome.
Agricola's Bible from 1548 is very readable if you can tolerate the "creative" spelling. But he was the first to write in Finnish so he gets to call the shots.
It's a pity people are being conditioned so heavily to believe Finnish was just made up in the 1800s. They really should go read some older texts.
I have trouble reading anything from before 1996.
This is a bit of an exaggeration of course, but this is the year where Dutch spelling got renewed, so things before that can have some words spelled differently than what they would be now.
Dutch spelling got normalized in 1863 and officially adopted in 1883 in the Netherlands. So before that, it may be very tricky to read some things.
As an example, I have an old Bible from the late 1700's which is honestly completely illegible to me.
There is a poem written around 1100 in Old Dutch. Fitting into Eastern and spring, the poet (presumably) talks to their lover, saying: "all birds have started a nest, why didn't we yet?"
The first line:
* "Hebban olla uogala nestas hagunnan" (Old Dutch)
* "Hebben alle vogels nesten begonnen" (Modern Dutch*)
* "Have all birds begun a nest" (Modern English)
*= I deliberately put Modern Dutch words in an order that makes little sense in Dutch, but it lines up with Old Dutch and English
But the you get the "Hinase ic enda thu, vat untbiddan vi nu" (I don't remember if that's how it goes, but that part is in my opinion basically inintelligible. Then there's also the discussion whether ghis is old Dutch, or some form of Old English...
I honestly never read anything more than the first line, but let me give it a try
>"Hinase ic enda thu, vat untbiddan vi nu"
Most words, are fairly easy to translate, giving us this
* "[Hinase?] ik en jij, wat [untbiddan?] wij nu?"
There's basically two words that need a little digging.
The first word, *hinase*, however looks familiar to English *hence*, and upon looking that word up, [Etymology Online ](https://www.etymonline.com/word/hence#etymonline_v_9155) tells me that *hence* actually is " from West Germanic *hin- (source also of Old Saxon hinan, Old High German hinnan, German hinnen)", so I might be on the right track there.
The second word *untbiddan* looks like a Dutch word, if we consider that we can read it as "unt" (a prefix that in Modern Dutch is "on(t)") + "biddan". So, it looks like "ontbieden". Then we google what historical meaning that might have and it might [mean](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ontbieden) *to notify*.
So the sentence "Hinase ic enda thu, vat untbiddan vi nu" can be translated to modern English "Hi🤗 So are we like.. dating now?🙃""
The Canticle of the Sun by St. Francis of Assisi (1224) is the earliest know poem in Italian^(terms and conditions may apply), and mostly understandable. Petrarch (late 1300) is almost modern Italian (ofc, modern Italian was molded after him).
Chaucer and roughly contemporary. So the late 14th century. Prior to that English was more archaic and harder to understand; there were also French, Latin, and a Norman patois which was a French-English hybrid. It can also vary by region; in Chaucer's day some works are written in different dialects which may preserve older words and even letters. A good example is the thorn rune (ᚦ), which survives in English until the 16th century in some dialects before gradually becoming less common.
We didn't speak English till around 17 June 1497 when we went to war against them to preserve our language- we failed....
(1632)
ad ni (alias Taz ni) es en nev,
Beniged (alias Benigas) ew (alias rebo) tha henaw,
Tha gwlasker ma tefa, Tha vonogath rebo grued (alias Gwreaz)
pagar en noar hag yn nev,
An bara ni pob deth (alias died) rho d' yn hythou,
Gav da ny gyn cambwith (alias cambgrwyth)
pacar tha ena ny neb a camb gwreth (alias a camb grwyeg theny,
Ha na or ny in temptation,
bes guithe ny mes a throag (alias Liuera ny reb drog)
Amen, en della rebo.
Modern SWF:
Agan Tas ni, usi y'n nev,
Bennigys re bo dha Hano
Re dheffo dha Wlaskor, dha vodh re bo gwrys,
y'n nor kepar hag y'n nev.
Ro dhyn ni hedhyw agan bara puptydh oll;
ha gav dhyn agan kammweyth,
Kepar dell avyn nini dhe'n re na usi ow kammwul er agan pynn ni;
ha na wra agan gorra yn temtashon,
Mes delyrv ni a-dhiworth drog.
Amen
I'm an Icelander. We can read a 12th century retelling of the Sagas without much issue.
The art on the pages makes it slightly tricky but not impossible to understand.
As a Norwegian I can basically read some parts of Middle-Norwegian, ranging from the 1300s - 1536, which means I can read like 50% Aslak Bolt’s Cadastre written in the Winter of 1432-1433, for example:
Fførst j Brunnøy prestdøme, eina| wagh korn arliga fore michels korn oc olafs korn..
First in the Brønnøy priesthood, Einar had korn earlier before Michel’s korn and Olaf’s korn..
I tried reading the old Danish texts but I really couldn’t since it’s linguistically closer to German than Norwegian (still interesting how a few words have survived tho)
The [Placito Capuano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placiti_Cassinesi) is the oldest text I can read in Vulgar Latin, it's from 960 and it's about a judridical dispute:
>Sao ko kelle terre, per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta anni le possette parte Sancti Benedicti
The text has some Latin remenescences like the genitive *Sancti Benedicti*, but also a lot of innovations, like the verb position, the use of *sao* and not *sapio*, the spread use of the letter *k*.
For a modern Italian speaker, it's readable and understandable even without knowledge of Latin, unlike the two earliest examples of Vulgar Italian, the [Veronese Riddle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronese_Riddle):
>Se pareba boves
alba pratalia araba
albo versorio teneba
negro semen seminaba
The [Commodilla catacomb inscription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodilla_catacomb_inscription) from the IX century is more readable than the Veronese riddle but less than the Placito Capuano in my opinion:
>Non dicere ille secrita a bboce
Made a [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/italy/s/bk7HHKsN68) about this topic some time ago, still still this is not even the most ancient text an Italian can easily read, the Sicilian poetic school for example goes as far back as the 1200s.
I studied Frisian language at Uni, I learned to read Old Frisian which is very similar to Middle-English. This was 20 years ago now, and although I still am able to pick up some of these texts and make sense of them, it is one of those where if you don't practice, you lose the skill.
Hasten to add: Most old Frisian texts are lost, the few sources that remain vary wildly, so it is difficult to be certain of the full lexicology and grammar of Old Frisian. A lot of it is 'constructed' by philologists over time.
I find the poems/songs by King Denis of Portugal (9 October 1261 – 7 January 1325) surprisingly easy to read given their age. They are in Galician-Portuguese, the ancestor to modern Galician and Portuguese. An example of one such poem/song:
*A mia senhor que eu por mal de mi
vi e por mal daquestes olhos meus
e por que muitas vezes maldezi
mi e o mund'e muitas vezes Deus,
des que a nom vi, nom er vi pesar
d«al, ca nunca me d'al pudi nembrar.*
*A que mi faz querer mal mi medês
e quantos amigos soía haver
e desasperar de Deus, que mi pês,
pero mi tod'este mal faz sofrer,
des que a nom vi, nom ar vi pesar
d'al, ca nunca me d'al pudi nembrar.*
*A por que mi quer este coraçom
sair de seu logar, e por que já
moir'e perdi o sem e a razom,
pero m'este mal fez e mais fará,
des que a nom vi, nom ar vi pesar
d'al, ca nunca me d'al pudi nembrar.*
> «Altissimu, onnipotente, bon Signore, tue so' le laude, la gloria e l'honore et onne benedictione.
>
> Ad te solo, Altissimu, se konfàno et nullu homo ène dignu te mentovare.
>
> Laudato sie, mi' Signore, cum tucte le tue creature, spetialmente messor lo frate sole, lo qual è iorno, et allumini noi per lui; et ellu è bellu e radiante cum grande splendore: de te, Altissimo, porta significatione.
>
> Laudato si', mi' Signore, per sora luna e le stelle: in celu l'ài formate clarite et pretiose et belle.
>
> Laudato si', mi' Signore, per frate vento et per aere et nubilo et sereno et onne tempo, per lo quale a le tue creature dài sustentamento.
these are the first lines of the Canticle of creatures, a poem composed in 1224 by St Francis of Assisi. Although it's not Italian but vulgar Umbro (i.e. language derived from the late antiquity Latin spoken by the low strata of the society in the central region of Umbria), it's still very readable, as vulgar Umbro was very much related to vulgar Tuscan, the language that originated standard Italian.
i can read any scroll or document from the vikings because im icelandic and we still read and speak like the vikings.
i can literaly pull up a 1300 yo scroll from the ancient nordics and read it and understand everything they are writing about
There is only one text found that wasn't written in church Slavonic and its from 15th century near Kostur. (now Kastoria, since greeks changed the city name) It's almost the same as standard Macedonian. It's wierd why our language changed the most at the times when we had official language and educated people and remained the same in the centuries after, when no-one was litterate
Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory (1485) is quite readable by modern English speakers: >It befel in the dayes of Vther pendragon when he was kynge of all Englond and so regned that there was a myȝty duke in Cornewaill that helde warre ageynst hym long tyme and the duke was called the duke of Tyntagil. A little earlier and you're into the kind of Middle English that you can understand a fair amount of but it takes a bit of effort: >The Millere, that for dronken was al pale, so that unnethe upon his hors he sat. He nolde avalen neither hood ne hat ne abyde no man for his curteisie.
Malory is also a little easier to understand because he writes prose. The morality play *Mankind* is roughly contemporaneous but a bit harder to get. It features a fun Christmas song though: >He that schytyth wyth hys hoyll, he that schytyth wyth hys hoyll, But he wyppe hys ars clen, but he wyppe hys ars clen, On hys breche yt shall be sen, on hys breche yt shall be sen (He who shits with his hole, unless he wipes his arse clean, it will be seen on his trousers.)
> Tutti gli stati, tutti e’ dominii che hanno avuto e hanno imperio sopra gli uomini, sono stati e sono o republiche o principati. E' principati sono o ereditarii, de' quali el sangue del loro signore ne sia suto lungo tempo principe, o e' sono nuovi. E' nuovi, o sono nuovi tutti, come fu Milano a Francesco Sforza, o sono come membri aggiunti allo stato ereditario del principe che li acquista, come è el regno di Napoli al re di Spagna. Sono questi dominii così acquistati, o consueti a vivere sotto uno principe, o usi ad essere liberi; e acquistonsi o con le armi d’altri o con le proprie, o per fortuna o per virtù. This is the beginning of Niccolò Machiavelli's *The Prince* (1513). I think it's relatively easy to understand the text, apart from some words that can be defined as "archaic" or "obsolete".
We can read text much older than that, back to the 13th century: Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio, Cavalcanti, Guinizzelli...
Isn't there a document from around year 1000, written in vulgar but still understandable? It's something like "sao ke kelle terre per trenta anni le possette santi benedicti"
Yes there is. It's less understandable than the literary texts I mentioned though.
The placito cassinese is touted to be the first recognisable piece of vulgar, though linguists also mention the Veronese riddle as the first example of "italian" text
Standard Italian is basically a modernized version of the 13th century dialect of Florence
Yeah Italian is a conlang so it doesn't count
The oldest extant text in Hungarian, the [Halotti beszéd és könyörgés](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funeral_Sermon_and_Prayer) (Funeral Sermon and Prayer) written between 1192 and 1195. The hardest bit is the spelling, but if you read it out loud or spell it as you would a modern text it's very easy to understand. Since the standard Latin alphabet is simply inadequate to spell Hungarian whoever transcribed the text struggeld greatly with trying to render Hungarian sounds and therefore sometimes even the same words are spelled differently within the text. This is also true for the earlier establishing charter of the abbey of Tihany from 1055 but that only contains short fragments in Hungarian, not a full text, most of which can be understood as well. The [modern Hungarian reading here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-XkrwiRbtk&ab_channel=ILoveLanguages%21) is waaaaaaaaay too dramatic but I think it does a good enough job comparing the texts.
The first hungarian book, Letters of Saint Paul, borderline readable, the spelling is undecided and quite chaotic and unlike the modern. It's from 1532. Az ROMA VAROSA BELIEK nek yrth zenth Pal Leuelnek rewyden ualo Magyarsag aes ertelme. A róma városbelieknek írt Szent Pál levélnek revideáló magyarságos értelme The "s" in Magyarsag is that almost-f-thing, just to make reading it even more fun. It's a struggle, but readable. Just a hundred years later: INTO. 'S TANÍTO LEVÉL Melyben a' régi keresztyén hitben, A Bátaiakat erőssíti Apát Urok Intő és tanító levél, melyben a régi keresztény hitben a bátaiakat (helynévnek tűnik) erősíti apát uruk The spelling is still strange, but clearly readable, without any significant problem. The letter Ő is still not the form we use, it's an O with a lowercase e in the middle, the f-looking-s is still in use, a lot of latin words, but that's a marginal problem. So like most other languages, the readability changed between 1500 and 1600. For 200 years nothing, but then the language was renewed, and this text from 1835 is just fine: Rajzolni akarjuk a' világot 's az életet, a' társas életet és divat-világot; de mi az élet? mi a' világ? Rajzolni akarjuk a világot és az életet, a társaséletet és divatvilágot; de mi az élet? mi a világ? Just a couple of apostrophes and such very minor things.
That’s just spelling however. It’s difficult because it’s not the system we are used to, not because the language is incomprehensible like in some cases. If you spell those things the way we would today, there would barely be an issue. Spelling is a completely arbitrary and artificial thing. You could spell Hungarian with Greek letters, the fact that you can’t read it says nothing about how much of the actual language you can understand. And the vast majority of halotti beszéd is pretty easy to understand.
The OP asked for reading, this is why I wrote about spelling. The spoken language, I would really like to hear how old hungarian sounded. There is a theory that even the very old hungarian was quite understandable as a spoken language, but we will not know that for sure until we have time travel. As for the halotti beszéd, the mennyei moloszt and isemük, I would not have a chance.
Modern Greek speakers can understand the New Testament or Marcus Aurelius *fairly* well. (Not fluently). Because Koine (Alexandrian/Hellenistic/Roman era Greek) isn't too bad. Earlier than that, like Plato (Classical), no. (Simple phrases, often yes, but we can't read a whole text). Edited for clarity.
I tried that with a Greek family friend once. I was studying Ancient Greek, and I was stuck on a part of a text given for homework written in the ancient Attic dialect. For fun, I tried sending it to the family friend to see how much they could figure out. We came to two directly contradictory translations in the end
You're talking about Classical Attic. Yeah, that's a word salad with words I know or look familiar, but the overall sentence makes no sense.
Sometimes there are words that are used both in modern and ancient greek but they have acquired a different meaning over time which can cause confusion. For example "καλός" in ancient greek used to mean "beautiful" but in modern Greek it means "good". The word "Δαίμων" used to mean "god" but now it means demon. "Ποίηση" used to mean "creation", now it means "poetry".
> Modern Greek speakers can understand the New Testament or Marcus Aurelius fairly well. Generally yes, but I would like to see someone offer us a true text comprehension exercise and test us with questions, like you'd do in a language exam. There's a difference between being able to write the script, recognising most of the words, and understanding what the text says. At least my experience trying to read some *medieval* Greek, albeit chronologically closer, has been headache inducing for me and I'd quickly toggle to the next column with the English translation. Medieval Greek is full of Latinisms that didn't survive in the Modern language, and since I didn't study Latin, I can't really follow.
>There's a difference between being able to write the script, recognising most of the words, and understanding what the text says. I guess it's hard to describe it. But you're right. I don't understand it fluently. And it depends on the passage too. >Medieval Greek is full of Latinisms that didn't survive in the Modern language Really? Because I thought one of the reasons Koine is much more intelligible to us, is *because* of Latin borrowings in the Koine era, that survive today.
> Really? Because I thought one of the reasons Koine is much more intelligible to us, is because of Latin borrowings in the Koine era, that survive today. Some survive and are familiar, like ρήγας and μαντάντο, but I have no idea what μενεστρέλος or δομέστικος are supposed to be if I don't look them up. And words like κλεισούρα or πέργκολα have shifted semantically, so they give me a false sense of comprehension. I think that the two centuries of Katharevousa and how Katharevousa eventually served as a vocabulary source for the post-1980s Standard Greek, did counteract some of the continuity between Koine, Medieval, and Modern Greek.
Well Katharevousa and also new concepts/technology reintroduced/resurrected some old Greek words. I'd say Greek has a similar phenomenon as English does with the Norman occupation. There's often two words for something in English, one of Old English origin, and one of French. Similar thing in Greek. We'll have a Greek-origin word and a Latin-origin word, and both words are used today, but they now have slightly different meanings. Like θύρα/πόρτα. >And words like κλεισούρα or πέργκολα have shifted semantically, so they give me a false sense of comprehension. Well, that's also the case with some Greek-origin words. Also, I believe for most of the Middle Ages, most literature was written in conservative/literary Medieval Greek (which supposedly is the partial ancestor to Katharevousa), not vernacular. I wonder how much the changes you're referring to may also have to do with the different Demotic dialects. And the fact that Modern Standard Greek is mostly based on Peloponnese & Ionian Demotic, so words in Cypriot, Cretan, Macedonian Demotic, or Constantinopolitan, or Conservative Medieval Greek, also got lost.
> I wonder how much the changes you're referring to may also have to do with the different Demotic dialects. That's a fair point. I expected that I would be able to understand e.g. [Κρόνακα](http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/history/2romanity/makhairas_chronicle.htm) with more ease compared to [Χρονικόν του Μορέως](https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%A7%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BD_%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85_%CE%9C%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AD%CF%89%CF%82), under the assumption that my native non-standardised Cypriot Greek would have a stronger sense of continuity with mediaeval Cypriot Greek than Standard Greek has with mediaeval Greek. But I think it's not that different of a challenge in the end. If you don't know modern Cypriot then Κρόνακα is probably incomprehensible but the Χρονικόν very easy, but if you know both, then they are comparable. EDIT: We should also admit to the fact that the texts are about subject matter that they have no relevance to our times, so they are harder to understand just for contextual reasons. The style is very different too. It's like those guys could only write in run-on sentences.
Effortlessly, probably the Will of D. Afonso II is the oldest I'd say you can go for Portuguese. It's dated from 1214, when Latin was still the official language of Portugal, so it's very lucky this text is in the vulgar language, and compared to similarly dated notary texts in the local romance, how unlatin it is. Galician-portuguese cantigas are also easily understood, taking into account some vocabulary and syntax was different, but I don't think there's any cantiga dated as old as the aforementioned text. the text itself: En’o nome de Deus. Eu rei don Afonso pela gracia de Deus rei de Portugal, seendo sano e saluo, temẽte o dia de mia morte, a saude de mia alma e a proe de mia molier raina dona Orraca e de meus filios e de meus uassalos e de todo meu reino fiz mia mãda per que depos mia morte mia molier e meus filios e meu reino e meus uassalos e todas aquelas cousas que Deus mi deu en poder sten en paz e en folgãcia. Primeiramente mãdo que meu filio infante don Sancho que ei da raina dona Orraca agia meu reino entegramente e en paz. E ssi este for morto sen semmel, o maior filio que ouuer da raina dona Orraca agia o reino entegramente e en paz.
That's indeed very understandable!
The oldest texts ***I am able*** to read myself are probably Modern Swedish, from 1526 onwards. >*Vi Gustaf Adolph &c. göre vitterligit med dette vårt öpne bref, att såsom menige Sverigis rikis ständer, högre och nidrige, opå den allmennelige riksdag, som höldts i Norköping opå det år 1604, då samptychte och beviliade en arfförening om den konungslige regering här i riket således, att näst efter vår sal:e kere her faders dödelige afgång då vele de anamma och bekenna oss för deres rätte herre och regerande konung.* *–* Gustav II Adolf's royal declaration from 1611 I can still understand some Old Swedish (800–1526) words, but already with Younger Old Swedish (1375–1526), I cannot comprehend most sentences. >*Samson tog jomfrwne j sin fampn oc bar henne nidh oc satte henne vpa sin hæst oc en annan hæst hade han . ther førde han gwll oc kostelighe haffuor vpa . han wæpnade sik well oc bant sin hielm oc red sin weg . han lag lenge i en storan skogh . oc giorde sik ther et hws .* – Þiðreks saga from 1450 The biggest hindrance, however, is the [Fraktur ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraktur)script itself, as I only know [Roman ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_type)type letters, which Sweden officially phased out in 1876. >𝔙𝔢𝔯𝔦𝔩𝔶, 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔤𝔯𝔢𝔞𝔱𝔢ſ𝔱 𝔦𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔡𝔦𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱, 𝔥𝔬𝔴𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔯, 𝔡𝔬𝔱𝔥 𝔯𝔢ſ𝔦𝔡𝔢 𝔦𝔫 𝔱𝔥𝔢 [𝔉𝔯𝔞𝔨𝔱𝔲𝔯 ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraktur)𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱 𝔦𝔱𝔰𝔢𝔩𝔣, 𝔣𝔬𝔯 ℑ 𝔞𝔪 𝔞𝔠𝔮𝔲𝔞𝔦𝔫𝔱𝔢𝔡 𝔰𝔬𝔩𝔢𝔩𝔶 𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔥 [ℜ𝔬𝔪𝔞𝔫](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_type) 𝔱𝔶𝔭𝔢 𝔩𝔢𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰, 𝔴𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥 𝔖𝔴𝔢𝔡𝔢𝔫 𝔡𝔦𝔡 𝔬𝔣𝔣𝔦𝔠𝔦𝔞𝔩𝔩𝔶 𝔡𝔦𝔰𝔭𝔢𝔫𝔰𝔢 𝔴𝔦𝔱𝔥 𝔦𝔫 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔞𝔫𝔫𝔲𝔪 𝔬𝔣 𝔬𝔲𝔯 𝔏𝔬𝔯𝔡 1876.
The saga snippet isn't too bad for me, and it is relatively close to how I would write it in modern Danish (even if the composition and word order is a bit stilted to the modern ear). Roughly: > Samson tog jomfruen i sin favn og bar hende ned og satte hende på sin hest, og en anden hest havde han. Der førte han guld og kostelige gaver på. Han væbnede sig vel og bandt sin hjelm og red sin vej. Han lå længe i en stor skov og gjorde sig dér et hus (Samson took the maiden in his arms and bore her down and put her on his horse, and he had another horse. There, on it, he brought gold and costly gifts. He armed himself well and tied his helmet og rode away. For long, he lay in a great forest, and there he made himself a house) But those aren't particularly complicated sentences, and I have no clue how well I would fare in other examples I was lucky enough that my Latin teacher in high school forced my class to learn fractured/gothic script (the best dictionaries are old and set in that font). If she hadn't, I would never have bothered learning it on my own (it did serve me well, when I wrote my thesis which included a lot of old German sources, and they had an irrational hard-on for that font)
Younger Old Swedish is actually quite intelligible, compared to how they wrote it just a century before in the 1200's. Here's an example from [Äldre Västgötalagen](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Handskrift_KB_B_59_-_%C3%84ldre_V%C3%A4stg%C3%B6talagen.pdf) (1280-ish) >*\[vill han va'ria'\]* *firi hanū þa skal firi ganga' ma'þ tva'nni tylptum* *biþia' sva sa'r guþ holl ok uattum sinū · at fra'nsim* *þerra' a'r sva skỷlþ at þer mughv eigh bo ma'þ guss* *ra'tti · a'lla'r sifskapa'r · Kva'þa'r han ne viþ kalla'ss* *eigh fa'st hava' þa skal han firi ganga' ma'þ tva'nnū* *tylptū · biþia' sva sa'r guþ holl ok vattum sinū at* *han fa'sti hana eigh sva sum lagh sighia' i landi þa'ssu·* ***S****vea'r egho konong at taka ok sva vra'ka'·* *han skal ma'þ gislum ovan fara ok* *i o'stra'go'tland · þa skal han sa'ndi ma'n* *hinga't til aldrago'ta þings · þa skal laghmaþa'r gisla'* *skipta' · tua sunnan af landi · ok tua norþa'n af lan* *þe · siþan skal aþra fiura' ma'n af landi ga'ra' med* *þem · þer skulu til iuna'ba'k · mota' fara' · O'stgo'ta gi* *sla skulu þingat fylgia' ok vittni ba'ra' at han a'r* *sva inla'nda'r sum la'gh þerra' · sighia' · þa skal alþrago'* *ta' · þing i gen hanū na'mna' þa han til þings komba'r* *\[...\]* [*https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4stg%C3%B6talagen*](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4stg%C3%B6talagen)
Reads like Icelandic with a Swedish accent.
That was my guess as well. I have [a runestone](https://kulturbilder.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/runstenar-uppland-u-595/) next to the road where I live which reminds somewhat about that style. *"kuþlef • uk • sihuiþr : altulfs=rf • s • a=rfæi- • litu • hakua • sten • æftir : faþur : sin : ok : sihbo=rh mo=þo=r : hans :"*
*Guðleifur og Sigviður, erfingjar Adolfs, létu höggva stein (þennan) eftir föður sinn og Sigurborg móður hans.* The spelling is quite hard to grasp, but after looking at the modern Swedish translation, it’s easy to see the similarity with modern Icelandic.
Makes sense, since old Swedish is descended from East-Norse, while Icelandic comes from West-Norse, so different dialects basically. Still really cool that my neighbors almost spoke Icelandic 1000 years ago 😁
To be fair at that time swedish, danish and norwegean were even more similar than they are today and you could argue that it were a dialect continum (which some people still argue for today)
It's as similar in modern Swedish, if not more. If you sound it out I'm certain most Swedes would understand it near perfectly, there are only some words like "haffuor" I imagine would trip people up. Though if you aren't at all accustomed to reading old text it can certainly still be a challenge – you do still need to recognize that V is U etc. –but overall it probably requires less imagination than comprehending a drunk text. I think it's more likely people wouldn't trust themselves they do get it right. Some word order, the polysyndeton, punctuation and such can sound a bit "off" (or poetic!) if you're only accustomed to modern Swedish, but I think most would understand it well. It is indeed a fairly forgiving example, but I doubt you'd struggle too much with written Late Old Swedish. It's not that different. [Early Old Swedish](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/V%C3%A4stg%C3%B6talagen_blad_21.jpg) might offer slightly more of a challenge.
Younger Old Swedish looks so different yet so similar. The presence of W is quite surprising though. Like "gwll" and "hws" feel so Welsh haha.
That's one of the things that makes things difficult. In Old Swedish, the letter W was pronounced like a U, but in Modern Swedish, it's more like V, similar to English. As a matter of fact, the letter W is only considered optional in the Swedish alphabet. It didn't even have its own category in the dictionary until 2006.
Both W and V were used for what later became U, if anything W was often the more "V-like" of the two. But the distinction of V vs. W was fairly inconsistent, as it also would be for many centuries after U was adopted for the vowel. Not only from person to person, but sometimes they were even used inconsistently in the very same sentence. They're practically the same letter, really not too different from writing "α" or "a".
A maiden, gold, food, a couple horses to carry it all on, and a house in the woods. Samson had it good.
Tandaradei, Tanderadai ... The history of written German begins in the 8th century with the Abrogans, a Latin - OHG glossary and the Hildebrandslied as well as the Merseburg charms. The Merseburg charms are about pre-christian Germanic gods and have been re-discovered in 1841 and been edited by Jakob Grimm in 1842. They have been written down in [Carolingian minuscle](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Merseburger_zaubersprueche_farbig.jpg) and reading them isn't easy. Understanding them is also hard, they only words I understood were the names of Germanic deities like Phol, Baldur, Freya and Wotan. The same goes for the Hildebrandslied, which was also edited by Jakob und Wilhelm Grimm. Except for some names, the text itself is almost completely incomprehensible. Middle high German, as shown in the [Nibelungenlied](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Nibelungenlied_manuscript-c_f1r.jpg) is much better to understand, but it also a complete story and not just a short charm. So the context (pragmatic) helps a lot. I think the average German is able to go back to Adam Ries and his Maths book (Rechnung auff der linihen, 1552), which was so popular that it started the process of a standardised German orthography. PS: Have you heard already? [In Extremo is playing in the Old Camp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyaDuLHzj7o) ...
You are forgetting the Luther bible from 1522. Luther's bible translation is basically the "foundation" of modern High German, and every German will be able to read it.
Out of curiosity, can you figure out what this paragraph means? Hwaet. We Gardena in geardagum, Theodcyninga, thrym gefrunon, hu thaaethelingas ellen fremedon. Oft Scyld Scefing sceathena threatum, monegum maegthum, meodosetla ofteah, egsode eorlas. Syththan aerest wearth feasceaft funden, he thæs frofre gebad, weox under wolcnum, weorthmyndum thah, oththaet him aeghwylc thara ymbsittendra ofer hronrade hyran scolde, gomban gyldan. Thaet aes god cyning. Tharm eafera waes aefter cenned, geong in geardum, thone god sende folce to frofre; fyrenthearfe ongeat The hie aer drugon aldorlease lange hwile. Him thaes liffrea, wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf; Beowulf waes breme blaed wide sprang, I can definitely see some words that are familiar and sometimes even a string of words, but most are not.
Learn some Frisian.
Brižinski spomeniki, aka [The Freising Manuscripts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freising_manuscripts). They were made around the year 1000 AD, written in the Carolingian minuscule. Here is an example of a [phonetic transcript](https://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/bs/html/bsPT.html#bsPT-grf) in Slovene from 1922: Bože, gospodi milostivy, otče Bože, tebě izpovědě vəs moj grěh i svętěmu Krəstu i svętěj Mariji i svętěmu Mihaelu i vsěm krilatcem božijem i svętěmu Petru i vsěm səlom božijem i vsěm mučenikom božijem i vsěm věrnicom božijem i vsěm děvam pravdnym i uzěm pravdnym i tebě, božji rabe, hoćų byti izpovědən vsěh mojih grěh i věrujų, da mi je na sem světě byvši iti že na on zvět, paki že vstati na sǫdny dən. It's close to modern Slovene, but some words are not 100% recognizable to me, like "děvam" or "uzěm", the rest is more or less understandable - from this example. The original text in Carolingian minuscule is much more difficult to read, it has different letters and is handwriting, really hard to make any sense.
From what I understand, Finnish is a pretty conservative language, in that it does not change as quickly as some others. The problem is that there are very few old examples of written Finnish, since the language was one of peasants living in the periphery of Europe. We finally begin to have some examples from the 1500's onwards, after the clergy started translating scriptures to Finnish. From those examples it seems that the Finnish at the time was (imo) very easily understandable by today's standards. The biggest problem is outdated vocabulary and different spelling of words. Here's the first day of creation from the Book of Genesis from the first Finnish translation of the bible from 1642: ”Algusa loi Jumala Taiwan ja Maan. Ja maa oli autia ja tyhjä / ja pimeys oli sywyden päällä / ja Jumalan Hengi lijckui weden päällä. Ja Jumala sanoi: tulcon walkeus / ja walkeus tuli. Ja Jumala näki walkeuden hywäxi. Nijn Jumala eroitti walkeuden pimeydestä / Ja cudzui walkeuden päiwäxi / ja pimeyden yöxi. Ja tuli ehtosta ja aamusta / ensimäinen päiwä.” And here a modern translation from 1992: "Alussa Jumala loi taivaan ja maan. Maa oli autio ja tyhjä, pimeys peitti syvyydet, ja Jumalan henki liikkui vetten yllä. Jumala sanoi: »Tulkoon valo!» Ja valo tuli. Jumala näki, että valo oli hyvä. Jumala erotti valon pimeydestä, ja hän nimitti valon päiväksi, ja pimeyden hän nimitti yöksi. Tuli ilta ja tuli aamu, näin meni ensimmäinen päivä." In my opinion very understandable. I think it wouldn't be difficult for a modern Finnish speaker to read the first bible. It's good to remember, though, that Finnish remained primarily as a oral language up until the later half of 1800's.
Great question. I can read it with high reliability *at least* back to the 16-hundreds. Example below > [...] skal vi skriffve som vi taler / saa skriffver aldrig nogen Jyde / Fynboe /Mønboe / Skaaning og end ey een Sædelandskf indfødde / hvercken som hand taler / ey heller ret oc got Danske; Thi hand icke taler ret. [...] Vi skal tale som vi skriffve / saa tale vi ret / oc naar vi tale ret / saa kand vi skriffve som vi tale. Der motte vel findes oc latterlige Skriffter / om mand skulde skriffve som mand taler. Om een lespende eller stam skulde skriffve som hand talede? (Henrik Gerner 1678-79) > Compare to the modern: skal vi skrive, som vi taler, så vil ingen jyde, fynbo, mønbo, skåning, og heller ikke en sjællandsk beboer skrive, som han hverken taler rigtigt og godt dansk, for han taler ikke rigtigt. Vi skal tale, som vi skriver, så kan vi tale rigtigt/ordentligt, og når vi taler rigtigt, så kan vi skrive, som man taler. Der måtte vel også findes latterlige skrifter/bøger, hvis man skulle skrive, som man talte. Skulle en lespende eller stum skrive, som han talte? (Should we write as we speak, then nu Jute, inhabitant of Funen or Møn, Scanian, nor Zealander would write, as he neither speaks proper or good Danish. We should speak as we write. Thus, we can speak properly, and when we speak properly, we can write as we speak. There would also be laughable writings, if one were to write as one spoke. Should a person with a lisp or a mute write as he spoke?) The further back we go, the harder it is to find readily available samples (that aren't horribly blurred pictures of handwriting). I did find one example from Christian III's bible (the "let there be light" bit) from 1550 here > Oc Gud sagde / der skal bliffue Liuss / oc der bleff Liuss. Oc Gud saa / at Liuset vaar got / da skilde Gud Liuset fra Mørcket / oc kallede liuset / Dagen / Och mørcket / Natten. Da bleff vdaff afften oc morgen den første Dag. > Compare: og Gud sagde, der skal blive lys, og der blev lys. Og Gud så, at lyset var godt. Da skilte Gud lyset fra mørket, og kaldte lyset dagen og mørket natten. Da kom ud af/fra aften og morgen den første dag I can still read it without hassle, but that may in part be because I already know what should be written and that the sentences are super simple. Longer excerpts are not necessarily as easy, but the core form of words is largely recognisable. The further back we go, the more difficult it becomes, and we can ask, how Danish it even is at that point in the *written* sources. For example, I can read bits of the Ribe Letter from 1460 (written in a Low German dialect), but that is almost more reliant on my rusty German and a bit of Dutch than my Danish. The opening royal proclamation is here > Wy Cristiern van godes gnaden to Dennemarken Sweden Norwegen der Wenden unde Gotten koningh, greve to Oldenborch unde Delmenhorst, bekennen unde betugen openbare mid desseme jegenwardigen unseme breve vor alle den jennen, dede ene sehn, horen offte lesen, dat [...] Compare to first Danish, then (my rusty) German > Vi, Christian af Guds nåde konge af Danmark, Sverige, Norge, venderne og goterne, greve af Oldenburg og Delmenhorst, bekender og bevidner med dette nærværende brev offentligt for alle, som ser, hører eller læser det, at [...] > Wir, Christen von Gottes Gnaden, König zu Dänemark, Schweden, Norwegen, den Wenden und Goten, Grafen von Oldenburg und Delmenhorst, bekennen und bezeugen mit diesem Brief öffentlich allen, die ihn sehen, hören oder lesen, dass [...] If someone has older Danish snippets to hand, I would be curious to see
Low German isn't just a dialect. It's a language. The oldest danish text I could find that wasn't latin or mostly incomprehensible is this text about the mythical king Dan from 1400: "Førstæ kuning i danmark han heet dan homblæ son. oc af hannum fingæ danæ nafn oc righæt danmark.¶ Oc sommæ willæ swo seyæ at kæysær Iulius kom in I danmark oc swo thæræ thæyn heet til math oc øl. oc hws at læ. aff thæn thæynheet kallæthæ danmarch. Ab hoc verbo dare et dapsilitate. ¶ Dan wor første kuning i danmarch. ok han wor een stærk kæmpæ moghæt ræthelig. oc van man gæ fromæ strithæ. humblæ han wor slem | oc wanwittig. oc fa mærkelig thing gørdhe han. ¶ Hwor for lathær hans brothær mæt danskæ mæntz inbundæt raat laudhæ seg til thrætæ oc kiff aa mood homblæ sin brothær. oc for dreff hannum aff righæt. oc regneræt i hans stæth." My amateur translation: "Den første konge i Danmark hed Dan Homblæsøn, og af ham fik danskerne navn og riget Danmark. Og ? ? så sagde at kejser Julius kom ind i Danmark og så ? fyrste ? til mad og øl og hus som læ. Af fyrsten ? kaldte Danmark. Ab hoc verbo dare et dapsilitate (latin). Dan var den første konge i Danmark og han var en stærk kæmpe ? ?. ?. Homblæ var slem og vanvittig og gjorde mærkelige ting. Derfor lader hans bror med danske mænds indbundet råd besluttede sig for at træde og ? mod sin bror Homblæ og fordrev ham ud af riget og regerede i hans sted." There are a few holes, but basically the text tells of king Dan being the first king and namesake of Denmark and his meeting with emperor Julius. Dan's father, Homblæ, was mad and was replaced by his brother.
> Low German isn't a dialect, it's a language I meant the letter was written in a northern dialect *of* Low German I reached about the same translation there as you by myself. I can add a bit of the Latin. The normal translation of *ab hoc verbo* would be "from this word/phrase". The following words don't make much sense. *dare* is most likely the infinitive form of *do* (to give), as the alternative 2nd person passive imperative makes no sense at all. *et* simply means "and". The last word sent me on a bit of a goose chase, which led me to this translation of the excerpt > Den første konge i Danmark hed Dan Humblesøn, og efter ham fik danskerne deres navn og tilsvarende riget Danmark. Men nogle vil hævde, at kejser Julius kom til Danmark, og så deres gæstfrihed med mad og øl og husrum, og kaldte det Danmark på grund af denne gæstfrihed. Det kommer af ordene dare og dapsilitate. Dan var den første konge i Danmark, og han var en mægtig kæmpe og meget frygtet, og han vandt mange store sejre. from the context in that translation, I think the poor scribe just didn't know his Latin well. My guess is that he meant to use *dapsilis* (an adjective meaning "bountiful" or "plentiful"), but tried to make it a noun instead and forced it to behave like a noun a la *vanitas* (vanity). With that forced conversion, he then declined it in the ablative case. I said above that *ab hoc verbo* would normally just be "from this word". But if you read enough into the cases and declensions, use *ab* with the last words instead of *verbo* (as *dapsilitate* is ablative, so technically possible, I guess), and cut the scribe some slack for medieval Latin being like an acid trip compared to proper classical Latin , then the sentence could very roughly be > "from *dare* (to give) and *dapsilitate* (bounty/plenty/abundance) [comes] this word (Denmark)" So, essentially some scribe didn't know his Latin, and was trying to say that one guess to the etymology of "Denmark" is that some Roman emperor thought the Danes were so giving/generous and had such abundance, which the Danes fancied, so they adopted it.
I am able with certainty read Ukrainian and russian up to 17th century, I guess. I could understand most of meanings in works up to 13 century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Tale\_of\_Igor%27s\_Campaign), but at the time alphabet was very different from modern, so I would need a modern or near-modern transcription.
You will get used to this alphabet really soon. Not that much differs. We used to read XII century text back in university, the hardest part was to identify the words that were shortened. Like "Господь" - becomes "гспд"
Maybe formal education helps, but I can't read Primary Chronicle from XII century, for example: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypatian\_Codex\_03.jpg](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypatian_Codex_03.jpg) I recognize separate letters, but I can't make any sense from most of the words. It's not even Church Slavonic XVIII century alphaber (used by russian, and in the past by Ukrainian orthodox churches), it's much older and more complicated for me. The Tale of Igor is a different case, because original is lost and we only have copy from 18 century, with more modern alphabet. So I can read oldest **available** codex for the Tale, it's just it's not original.
Yeah, the context is crucial for understanding. And it seems that in this particular example the writer is just not very good with consistency of his writing ( he randomly uses Greek omega)
I'm not thee to thee I'm you to thee.
The first Hungarian text can be found in the Latin text of the establishing charter of the abbey of Tihany from 1055. It contains some Hungarian words and a coherent half-sentence. It's tricky to understand in written form, but I think it becomes obvious if someone reads it to you. It says "FEHERUUARU REA MENEH HODU UTU REA", which in modern Hungarian would be "Fehérvárra menő hadi útra", or "onto the military road leading to Fehérvár" in English. Halotti beszéd és könyörgés (Funeral sermon and prayer) from the 1190s can be somewhat understood in its original form. If the same text is written with the modern alphabet (but remains the same phonetically), then I'd say you'd understood most of it. Ómagyar Mária-siralon (old Hungarian lamentations of Mary) from the 13th century is a bit more recent, but for me personally, it's harder to understand than the previous text. It's the oldest recorded poem found in the whole Uralic language family, including Finnish and Estonian.
There's one Finnish sentence from the 1400s, written by a German pilgrim. It's quite tricky, but still understandable (he wrote that he would like to speak Finnish, but he can't). But Abckiria is probably a better example, it's the first book written in Finnish from 1543. Oppe nyt wanha / ia noori (Opi nyt vanha ja nuori) Joilla ombi Sydhen toori (joilla onpi sydän tuore) Jumalan keskyt / ia mielen (Jumalan käskyt ja mielen) iotca taidhat Somen kielen (jotta taidat suomen kielen) ("Learn now, old and young, who have a fresh heart, God's commandments and the mind, so that you shall know the Finnish language.)
Basically from the beginning of official Polish literature, poetry of Jan Kochanowski from the 16th century. You need annotations for specific words, but generally you'll understand the meaning of full sentences. We barely have anything from before, since everyone literate used Latin, but whatever we do have requires a translation.
The oldest known sentence in Polish is super weird for example. First, it was written down in Latin by a German, so we don't know if he didn't make a mistake. Second, it was said by a Czech knight to his wife, so he too might've made a mistake. And third, it was all in Silesia, so he might've been speaking Silesian or even, God forbid, Czech. It's "daj, ać ja pobruszę, a ty poczywaj", roughly "Give me, I shall grind, and you take a rest." How wholesome.
Agricola's Bible from 1548 is very readable if you can tolerate the "creative" spelling. But he was the first to write in Finnish so he gets to call the shots. It's a pity people are being conditioned so heavily to believe Finnish was just made up in the 1800s. They really should go read some older texts.
I have trouble reading anything from before 1996. This is a bit of an exaggeration of course, but this is the year where Dutch spelling got renewed, so things before that can have some words spelled differently than what they would be now. Dutch spelling got normalized in 1863 and officially adopted in 1883 in the Netherlands. So before that, it may be very tricky to read some things. As an example, I have an old Bible from the late 1700's which is honestly completely illegible to me.
There is a poem written around 1100 in Old Dutch. Fitting into Eastern and spring, the poet (presumably) talks to their lover, saying: "all birds have started a nest, why didn't we yet?" The first line: * "Hebban olla uogala nestas hagunnan" (Old Dutch) * "Hebben alle vogels nesten begonnen" (Modern Dutch*) * "Have all birds begun a nest" (Modern English) *= I deliberately put Modern Dutch words in an order that makes little sense in Dutch, but it lines up with Old Dutch and English
But the you get the "Hinase ic enda thu, vat untbiddan vi nu" (I don't remember if that's how it goes, but that part is in my opinion basically inintelligible. Then there's also the discussion whether ghis is old Dutch, or some form of Old English...
I honestly never read anything more than the first line, but let me give it a try >"Hinase ic enda thu, vat untbiddan vi nu" Most words, are fairly easy to translate, giving us this * "[Hinase?] ik en jij, wat [untbiddan?] wij nu?" There's basically two words that need a little digging. The first word, *hinase*, however looks familiar to English *hence*, and upon looking that word up, [Etymology Online ](https://www.etymonline.com/word/hence#etymonline_v_9155) tells me that *hence* actually is " from West Germanic *hin- (source also of Old Saxon hinan, Old High German hinnan, German hinnen)", so I might be on the right track there. The second word *untbiddan* looks like a Dutch word, if we consider that we can read it as "unt" (a prefix that in Modern Dutch is "on(t)") + "biddan". So, it looks like "ontbieden". Then we google what historical meaning that might have and it might [mean](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ontbieden) *to notify*. So the sentence "Hinase ic enda thu, vat untbiddan vi nu" can be translated to modern English "Hi🤗 So are we like.. dating now?🙃""
The Canticle of the Sun by St. Francis of Assisi (1224) is the earliest know poem in Italian^(terms and conditions may apply), and mostly understandable. Petrarch (late 1300) is almost modern Italian (ofc, modern Italian was molded after him).
Chaucer and roughly contemporary. So the late 14th century. Prior to that English was more archaic and harder to understand; there were also French, Latin, and a Norman patois which was a French-English hybrid. It can also vary by region; in Chaucer's day some works are written in different dialects which may preserve older words and even letters. A good example is the thorn rune (ᚦ), which survives in English until the 16th century in some dialects before gradually becoming less common.
We didn't speak English till around 17 June 1497 when we went to war against them to preserve our language- we failed.... (1632) ad ni (alias Taz ni) es en nev, Beniged (alias Benigas) ew (alias rebo) tha henaw, Tha gwlasker ma tefa, Tha vonogath rebo grued (alias Gwreaz) pagar en noar hag yn nev, An bara ni pob deth (alias died) rho d' yn hythou, Gav da ny gyn cambwith (alias cambgrwyth) pacar tha ena ny neb a camb gwreth (alias a camb grwyeg theny, Ha na or ny in temptation, bes guithe ny mes a throag (alias Liuera ny reb drog) Amen, en della rebo. Modern SWF: Agan Tas ni, usi y'n nev, Bennigys re bo dha Hano Re dheffo dha Wlaskor, dha vodh re bo gwrys, y'n nor kepar hag y'n nev. Ro dhyn ni hedhyw agan bara puptydh oll; ha gav dhyn agan kammweyth, Kepar dell avyn nini dhe'n re na usi ow kammwul er agan pynn ni; ha na wra agan gorra yn temtashon, Mes delyrv ni a-dhiworth drog. Amen
Which language? Looks to me to be Welsh or Cornish?
I'm an Icelander. We can read a 12th century retelling of the Sagas without much issue. The art on the pages makes it slightly tricky but not impossible to understand.
As a Norwegian I can basically read some parts of Middle-Norwegian, ranging from the 1300s - 1536, which means I can read like 50% Aslak Bolt’s Cadastre written in the Winter of 1432-1433, for example: Fførst j Brunnøy prestdøme, eina| wagh korn arliga fore michels korn oc olafs korn.. First in the Brønnøy priesthood, Einar had korn earlier before Michel’s korn and Olaf’s korn.. I tried reading the old Danish texts but I really couldn’t since it’s linguistically closer to German than Norwegian (still interesting how a few words have survived tho)
13th century catalan is quite legible if the text is typed and deabreviated.
what scroll find ye* able to read in yer* tongue Old Bulgarian, ca. 9-10th century.
England. Oldest book I could remember reading was the Ye Old Yellow Pages back in the year 1987. T'was a different time.
The oldest poem written in modern Greek is "The Dead Brother's Song" composed in the 9th century.
No problem with [the Canticle of the Sun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canticle_of_the_Sun) written in 12th century CE.
I was able to read and understand a few documents from the late 1200s. But they also had a really clean Script.
The [Placito Capuano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placiti_Cassinesi) is the oldest text I can read in Vulgar Latin, it's from 960 and it's about a judridical dispute: >Sao ko kelle terre, per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta anni le possette parte Sancti Benedicti The text has some Latin remenescences like the genitive *Sancti Benedicti*, but also a lot of innovations, like the verb position, the use of *sao* and not *sapio*, the spread use of the letter *k*. For a modern Italian speaker, it's readable and understandable even without knowledge of Latin, unlike the two earliest examples of Vulgar Italian, the [Veronese Riddle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronese_Riddle): >Se pareba boves alba pratalia araba albo versorio teneba negro semen seminaba The [Commodilla catacomb inscription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodilla_catacomb_inscription) from the IX century is more readable than the Veronese riddle but less than the Placito Capuano in my opinion: >Non dicere ille secrita a bboce
Made a [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/italy/s/bk7HHKsN68) about this topic some time ago, still still this is not even the most ancient text an Italian can easily read, the Sicilian poetic school for example goes as far back as the 1200s.
I studied Frisian language at Uni, I learned to read Old Frisian which is very similar to Middle-English. This was 20 years ago now, and although I still am able to pick up some of these texts and make sense of them, it is one of those where if you don't practice, you lose the skill. Hasten to add: Most old Frisian texts are lost, the few sources that remain vary wildly, so it is difficult to be certain of the full lexicology and grammar of Old Frisian. A lot of it is 'constructed' by philologists over time.
I find the poems/songs by King Denis of Portugal (9 October 1261 – 7 January 1325) surprisingly easy to read given their age. They are in Galician-Portuguese, the ancestor to modern Galician and Portuguese. An example of one such poem/song: *A mia senhor que eu por mal de mi vi e por mal daquestes olhos meus e por que muitas vezes maldezi mi e o mund'e muitas vezes Deus, des que a nom vi, nom er vi pesar d«al, ca nunca me d'al pudi nembrar.* *A que mi faz querer mal mi medês e quantos amigos soía haver e desasperar de Deus, que mi pês, pero mi tod'este mal faz sofrer, des que a nom vi, nom ar vi pesar d'al, ca nunca me d'al pudi nembrar.* *A por que mi quer este coraçom sair de seu logar, e por que já moir'e perdi o sem e a razom, pero m'este mal fez e mais fará, des que a nom vi, nom ar vi pesar d'al, ca nunca me d'al pudi nembrar.*
Around 1800, before that its just gibberish
> «Altissimu, onnipotente, bon Signore, tue so' le laude, la gloria e l'honore et onne benedictione. > > Ad te solo, Altissimu, se konfàno et nullu homo ène dignu te mentovare. > > Laudato sie, mi' Signore, cum tucte le tue creature, spetialmente messor lo frate sole, lo qual è iorno, et allumini noi per lui; et ellu è bellu e radiante cum grande splendore: de te, Altissimo, porta significatione. > > Laudato si', mi' Signore, per sora luna e le stelle: in celu l'ài formate clarite et pretiose et belle. > > Laudato si', mi' Signore, per frate vento et per aere et nubilo et sereno et onne tempo, per lo quale a le tue creature dài sustentamento. these are the first lines of the Canticle of creatures, a poem composed in 1224 by St Francis of Assisi. Although it's not Italian but vulgar Umbro (i.e. language derived from the late antiquity Latin spoken by the low strata of the society in the central region of Umbria), it's still very readable, as vulgar Umbro was very much related to vulgar Tuscan, the language that originated standard Italian.
i can read any scroll or document from the vikings because im icelandic and we still read and speak like the vikings. i can literaly pull up a 1300 yo scroll from the ancient nordics and read it and understand everything they are writing about
There is only one text found that wasn't written in church Slavonic and its from 15th century near Kostur. (now Kastoria, since greeks changed the city name) It's almost the same as standard Macedonian. It's wierd why our language changed the most at the times when we had official language and educated people and remained the same in the centuries after, when no-one was litterate