Modern Early Modern English

What is the latest possible POD for the English language we speak now to look more like Early Modern English, at least in retaining some of the grammatical structures that were lost?
 
The best thing would be to prevent English from becoming a widespread language. If, instead of spreading to North America during the 17th century and to many lands beyond that during the 18th and subsequent centuries, you could keep English a purely (regionally important) European language on the order of, say, Swedish, or Serbo-Croatian, you could keep a few of the archaic features found in Shakespeare's English around. What contributed a lot to the simplification of English grammar in OTL was the huge influx of second-language speakers as it became more and more a lingua franca and international prestige language. Overall, there appears to be some sort of correlation between size of speech community and tendency toward a "simple" structural type (though with many caveats and counterexamples).

For a look at a more conservative "English" in our OTL, see Scots (which also has less Romance influence than English).
 
The best thing would be to prevent English from becoming a widespread language. If, instead of spreading to North America during the 17th century and to many lands beyond that during the 18th and subsequent centuries, you could keep English a purely (regionally important) European language on the order of, say, Swedish, or Serbo-Croatian, you could keep a few of the archaic features found in Shakespeare's English around. What contributed a lot to the simplification of English grammar in OTL was the huge influx of second-language speakers as it became more and more a lingua franca and international prestige language. Overall, there appears to be some sort of correlation between size of speech community and tendency toward a "simple" structural type (though with many caveats and counterexamples).

For a look at a more conservative "English" in our OTL, see Scots (which also has less Romance influence than English).

Most of the spread of English during the 17th century was due to English people physically moving abroad (e.g., to America), and it was during this period that English lost many of its "archaic" features. (This is wholly based on my own impression after reading works written during the 17th and 18th centuries, and may not be hugely accurate.)

What is the latest possible POD for the English language we speak now to look more like Early Modern English, at least in retaining some of the grammatical structures that were lost?

One feature that it would be quite easy to retain would be the 2nd person singular/plural distinction (thou vs. you). During the Tudor period people started using the 2nd plural to show respect or deference, much as in modern French. (Hence the immortal line from the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, "Thou -- and yes, I thou thee, thou traitor!") Then some people got the idea that it would be tremendously cool to be super-polite and use you when speaking to anybody; this then caught on, and thee ended up dying out as a result. So either keep the thou-you distinction a strictly numerical one, or nix the fashion for using you for everybody, and you'd still have thou, and probably the other 2nd singular forms (art for are, etc.), used in everyday speech -- which, even if everything else changed as per OTL, would probably make the language look decidedly old-fashioned to our ears.
 
Last edited:
Most of the spread of English during the 17th century was due to English people physically moving abroad (e.g., to America), and it was during this period that English lost many of its "archaic" features. (This is wholly based on my own impression after reading works written during the 17th and 18th centuries, and may not be hugely accurate.)



One feature that it would be quite easy to retain would be the 2nd person singular/plural distinction (thou vs. you). During the Tudor period people started using the 2nd plural to show respect or deference, much as in modern French. (Hence the immortal line from the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, "Thou -- and yes, I thou thee, thou traitor!") Then some people got the idea that it would be tremendously cool to be super-polite and use you when speaking to anybody; this then caught on, and thee ended up dying out as a result. So either keep the thou-you distinction a strictly numerical one, or nix the fashion for using you for everybody, and you'd still have thou, and probably the other 2nd singular forms (art for are, etc.), used in everyday speech -- which, even if everything else changed as per OTL, would probably make the language look decidedly old-fashioned to our ears.
What's tha mean? Thou canst bi serious can thi? Come round ours an pin thi lugoyles back a while, an thile see that mode o'speekin ain't lost - not around these parts, anyhow! Thile find a reet warrm welcome, an thee must abide a bit an see tha quality o'our tups in these parts, thile bi reet impressed!

Best regards t'thi
Ken
Hailin from Littleborough in Lankyshire.
 
What's tha mean? Thou canst bi serious can thi? Come round ours an pin thi lugoyles back a while, an thile see that mode o'speekin ain't lost - not around these parts, anyhow! Thile find a reet warrm welcome, an thee must abide a bit an see tha quality o'our tups in these parts, thile bi reet impressed!

Best regards t'thi
Ken
Hailin from Littleborough in Lankyshire.

As a proud (half-)Yorkshireman, I don't recognise this "Lancashire" place thou referrest to.
 
As a proud (half-)Yorkshireman, I don't recognise this "Lancashire" place thou referrest to.
Ow can ya be an 'alf Tyke? Thi either is or thi isn't?
Mind it's reet what they say:
Yorkshire born
Yorkshire bred
Strong in t' tharm
An thick in t'thed

But - how come tha's usin "referrest" yer not one a them soft southern Jessie's are ya?

I bet you were born south of the ship canal - a soft southerner?
 
Ow can ya be an 'alf Tyke? Thi either is or thi isn't?
Mind it's reet what they say:
Yorkshire born
Yorkshire bred
Strong in t' tharm
An thick in t'thed

But - how come tha's usin "referrest" yer not one a them soft southern Jessie's are ya?

I bet you were born south of the ship canal - a soft southerner?

I am using referrest in emulation of the great early modern writer Shakespeare. Hast thou a problem with that, thou elvish-mark'd, abortive rooting hog?
 
As a proud (half-)Yorkshireman, I don't recognise this "Lancashire" place thou referrest to.
"Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o’clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of ‘ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!"

...and on Test Match Special the other day, when they were discussing lowest scores teams were bowled out for, I fully expected Geoffrey Boycott to come on and say "Bowled out t'opposition for three? Nothing! We bowled out t'opposition for minus four!"
 
"Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o’clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of ‘ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!"

...and on Test Match Special the other day, when they were discussing lowest scores teams were bowled out for, I fully expected Geoffrey Boycott to come on and say "Bowled out t'opposition for three? Nothing! We bowled out t'opposition for minus four!"
Chuckle ........
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
The best thing would be to prevent English from becoming a widespread language. If, instead of spreading to North America during the 17th century and to many lands beyond that during the 18th and subsequent centuries, you could keep English a purely (regionally important) European language on the order of, say, Swedish, or Serbo-Croatian, you could keep a few of the archaic features found in Shakespeare's English around. What contributed a lot to the simplification of English grammar in OTL was the huge influx of second-language speakers as it became more and more a lingua franca and international prestige language. Overall, there appears to be some sort of correlation between size of speech community and tendency toward a "simple" structural type (though with many caveats and counterexamples).

For a look at a more conservative "English" in our OTL, see Scots (which also has less Romance influence than English).

I don't think that much of the evolution of English has been America specific, and in many ways American English is more conservative (preservation of post vocalic 'r', retention of silent 'h' in more French loanwords, use of archaic AS vocabulary instead of latinate equivalents e.g, fall > autumn). The only features of standard North American English I'd put down to language contact is the use of the past simple (did) instead of present perfect (have done) with words like yet and already and for giving news.

What we call modern English was more or less in place by the time US and UK went their separate ways, and before English was a widely used 2nd language. To keep archaic features you'd probably want to change the balance of power in the UK around 1650-1700, with prestige given to a different regional variety.
 
I don't think that much of the evolution of English has been America specific, and in many ways American English is more conservative (preservation of post vocalic 'r', retention of silent 'h' in more French loanwords, use of archaic AS vocabulary instead of latinate equivalents e.g, fall > autumn). The only features of standard North American English I'd put down to language contact is the use of the past simple (did) instead of present perfect (have done) with words like yet and already and for giving news.

What we call modern English was more or less in place by the time US and UK went their separate ways, and before English was a widely used 2nd language. To keep archaic features you'd probably want to change the balance of power in the UK around 1650-1700, with prestige given to a different regional variety.
You would have to have a stronger north, move the capital to York, and have London damaged in some serious fashion. Possible? Perhaps, but the south would have to be down and out.
Oh I wish.............
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
You would have to have a stronger north, move the capital to York, and have London damaged in some serious fashion. Possible? Perhaps, but the south would have to be down and out.
Oh I wish.............

Some kind of face off between the Catholic north and protestant south east in the 17th century? They spend 30 years as separate states then the north takes over thanks to Johnny Spaniard, the capital remains at York.
 
Sorry, but the North would NOT see Johnny Spaniard have an easy time in England. We might be independent, but we would not see a foreign force tread on the neck of an Englishman; even if he is a Southern Jessie!
 
Top