Re: [Epic] Erik Rutins Campaign Rules

From: <duckrvr_at_...>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:22:33 -0500

At 11:58 AM 6/21/97 -0700, you wrote:
>duckrvr_at_... wrote:
>
>> England it happened sometime between Middle English and Modern English.
>> Ever read Chaucer in the original?
>
>Yes, as a matter of fact I did... I'd recommend reading Terry Jones
>"Chaucer's Knight" for an interesting view of him.

Read it. Used it as a reference in a paper. He pretty much hammers the
knight. Of course, compared to the other characters it really shouldn't
have been any great surprise that Chaucer was actually sending him up.

>> Everything was phonetic. By the time
>> you get to Shakespear, many of the words are spelled similarly to Chaucer's
>> time (and today's English is also), but they are pronounced almost as they
>> are today.
>
>And funnily enough, it's only in certain places in the W.Indies and US
>East coast that Elizebethan pronunciation is still current. Coo -raj -er
>for courage, for example, act -ey- on for action.
>It's a private joke amongst English scholars that the Yankee Drawl is
>considerably close to Shakespear

Actually, Appalachian accents are the closest to Elizabethan, although it's
through Scottish ties. The intrusive "R" (frex, "warsh", instead of
"wash") is Scottish in origin, but the rest of the accent is very English.
(Bluegrass music has strong Scottish influences also, BTW.)

>or Shakesper, spelling wasn't

Or Shakespeare, or shakspear, or any of a half dozen other spellings.

>> You can almost read Chaucer as it is written if you know modern
>> English, aside from vocabulary differences.
>
>It's a lot easier if you've also studied Old Saxon, Plattdeutsch, Dutch,
>and for that matter, un petit peu Francais.

But my point is you can do it without much trouble.

>> On the other hand the pronunciation . . .
>>
>> wahn thaht Ahpreel with its shorres soata
>> the drote of March hath pear-sid to the roata
>>
>> . . . bears little resemblance to today's.
>
>I've got to say that your exposition was extremely good. Rather better
>than I might have done myself. With your permission, may I clip it and
>use it whan I want to explain to others how English has changed.

Feel free. I'm flattered.

>We should ask Francois how the Academy Francais views Quebecois in all
>its 17th century glory, where the situation is similar...

The French Academy is a wee bit anal, IMHO. They have that oh-so-annoying
"we are the intellectuals and we know how it should be done" attitude. The
fact that the grammatic rules and vocabulary they are insisting on has
little to do with common speech does not deter them one bit. At least the
MLA is beginnig to recognize that language does evolve, and that many of the
rules of grammar are artificial constructs imposed by a small minority of
"scholars" to make themselves feel important (in much the same way groups
form their own unique slang expressions).

Getting off the soapbox now . . .

Temp
Received on Mon Jun 23 1997 - 13:22:33 UTC