/lit/ - Literature

>>17285063
Robinson Crusoe is the only one that stands out in that list. But really, it should go to Thomas Malory for Le Morte d'Arthur. First means first.

>>17285063
I don't get it, wouldn't it obviously be Chaucer?

>>17285170
Essentially depends on how you define things. Chaucer wrote verse and most people consider a novel to be a prose work (Canterbury tales does have prose excerpts but they don't really comprise a novel--they're prose passages in a larger verse work). Not to mention, Chaucer spoke & wrote late Middle English. If you count Middle English verse then you should really count Old English verse and there's quite a bit of that that could qualify. In terms of EME verse the Faerie Queene is the best contender--though ironically IMO it's harder to read than Chaucer.

Anybody on /lit/ actually read the Faerie Queene?

>>17285901
>If you count Middle English verse then you should really count Old English verse
I don't really agree with this. Middle English is mostly just learning archaic vocabulary, words that either don't exist anymore or have undergone semantic shift. You barely even need to worry about phonetics except for rhymes in verse.
Old English, on the other hand, has such radically different grammar that I think it's very reasonable to consider it a "different language". You have to learn an entire case system, for one thing.

>>17286865
I think this opinion is only applicable to Chaucer, and even then not really.

In the end its a question of degrees. The Shakespeare we read today is modernized (e.g. heart-strooeke changed to heartstruck), but it's clear that the language is the same, not least because read aloud it can be understood. There's a point where modernization becomes translation. Older (read: non-Chaucer) Middle English texts require more than familiarity with archaisms to read: you'll find that to read them you'll essentially have to learn translations. Here're some examples:

From Holy Maidenhood (c. 1200)
>Ah schawi we yet witerluker, as we ear biheten, hwet drehen the i-weddede thet thu i-cnawe therib hu murie thu maht libben meiden i thi meithad over thet heo libbeth, to eche the murhthe and the menske in Heovene thet muth ne mei numnen...

From Alysoun (c. 1330) [note the use here of the old english pronouns: hyre, heo, &c]:
>Bytuene Mersh and Averil
> Whan spray biginneth to springe,
>The lutel foul hath hire wyl
> Oh hyre lud to synge
> Ich libbe in love-longinge
> For semlokest of alle thynge
> Heo may me blisse bringe.
> Ich am in hire baundoun.

Chaucer is the exception because his orthography is particularly forward-thinking and he's very late in the period. Even his contemporaries are harder; here's Hoccleve (c. 1410):
>O thyng seye I, if thow go feerelees
>Al solitarie and conseli lakke and reed,
>As me thynkith thy gyse is, doutelees
>Thow likly art to bere a dotid heed.
>Whil thow art soul, thoght his wastyng seed
>Sowith in thee, and that in greet foysoun,
>And thow reedlees nat canst voide his poisoun

I think there's good reason to call Middle Eenglish a different language--at a certain point, it's not that "Ich" is just an older way to say I--"Ich" is the Early Middle English first person singular pronoun, and so for all the other words.

>>17287346
I appreciate the effort post. Indeed my only experience of Middle English has been Chaucer, so I'll readily concede.

>>17287346
This. It also depends on the subject matter, the author's dialect, and how close in composition it is to Modern English. 'Middle English' is hugely variable and it's not just because of the timeframe.

>>17287346
Whatever, nigger

>>17289345
>ifunny.co

>>17289352
Problem?

>>17287346
Very interesting, I appreciate the effort that went into this.

>>17289374
Ummm... did you just mention the forbidden app??? Thats not very part of the ship part of the crew bro. Very sus, we are gonna have to vote you out!

>>17289527
downvoted

>>17287346
Bro. Like, go outside bro. Please

>>17289374
The ifunny border has become the premiere trolling method.
The tasteful thickness of it. It even has a watermark.

>>17287346
Who was that Middle English poet who wrote in alternating French and English, i.e., one line in French, the next in Middle English, French again etc.?

King James Bible

>>17291403
This type of poetry is called "Macronic verse" and is well attested in the Medieval period. More common is English/Latin, but I believe English/French (or English/Anglo-Norman) is extant also. I don't know of any particular author who's well known for it, and my googling has been unfruitful. Nevertheless, here's a Jstor link to a paper about it:
>jstor . org/stable/26280874?seq=1
And here's Polemo-Middinia inter Vitarvam et Nebernam" -- a poem written in Latin grammar with Scots vocabulary
>digital . nls . uk/publications-by-scottish-clubs/archive/81328230?mode=transcription

The only text I've found that is for sure Macronic English/French is Trinity College Cambridge's MS R.14.39. There's unfortunately no online scan of the manuscript (though in theory a transcription exists). I'm not sure how interested in this text you are, but I'll be in Cambridge in a few months; you want a transcription of a poem or two?

>>17287346
The Hoccleve is mostly understandable

>>17291625
Yeah, I tried searching for it too; I remember about in some kind of a poetry textbook, but I can't remember what it was.
In case you're interested I happened to find a MRes thesis about it: The macaronic technique in the English language in texts from the old English, medieval and early modern periods (9th to 18th centuries): a collection and discussion.

http://theses . gla . ac . uk/3550/1/2012BoehmeMres . pdf

>>17287346
based effortpost