hckrnws

As a native German speaker, I can at least say that knowing both German and English doesn't really help in understanding the text. Not even the most "dumbed down" version - ok, he's apparently saying something about his wife, but no idea what exactly. And when I read "shyne (Modern English "sheen" but German cognate is closer)", I was even more confused. "Sheen" is the property of an object that is shiny, which in German would be "Schein", but because it is applied to a woman, I assume that the "cognate" he refers to is "schön" (beautiful)?

Also knowing (archaic?) Scandinavian helps a little more.

"swa" is like a contraction of german "so wie". sindon is probably like german "sind": is/were.

soþ - sweet? gefeohte - past-tense born/nurtured/raised. ƿælfæst - wellfed. sƿylce - equivalent to modern "swole"? andƿlite - cognate with "anlete" which means face. ƿynsum - "finesome". searocræftum: specially-forceful (fantasy modern swedish cognate "särkraftigt"). "for þy" - since/because ("fördi"). forlætan: forgive.

ƿifode - wifed (strangely modern)

ofslean: probably closer to modern "avslå or "Abschlagen" than "slain". Defeat?

Ac - maybe like "ach"?

naƿiht: antonym to "evig"?

geƿitan - go/leave/escape/flee? (Scandinavian "vidd" means expansive landscape, cognate with "width" and "weit")

Nefne - negation of efne: "not even"?

stede - meaning is probably "farms" or "smallholdings"

gebunden - cognate with "bound", but the meaning is probably closer to "enserfed".

gefultumige - feels like past-tense of a verb that means "filled with"?

Squinting:

"And what she said was all sweet. I wifed her, and she was fully? beautiful wife, wise and wellfed . Not met I ever "swoler" woman. She was born so bold as any man, and though-whatis her face was fine and fair.

"Alas we never free were, since we never might from Wulfsfleet left, and never that Hlaford find and him defeat. That Hlaford had these places with such force bound, that no man may him forgive. We are here like birds in net, like fishes in weir.

"And we him secaþ git, both together, man and wife, through the dark strife this grim place. Whathere God us filled-with!"

Knowing German would mostly be helpful for understanding the grammar of Old English. The three genders and four cases, participles prefixed with ge-, verbs like sindon (=sind). There are tons of cognates with German (like þurh = durch) but they're hard to recognize immediately unless you know the kinds of sound changes that are common.

I, too, find it confusing. The "German cognate is closer" is not helpful!

I think the ö is significant. It could correspond to English ē, but not ei, -ine.

Under sʜᴇᴇɴ, Partridge [1] states that OE scēne, scȳne are related to G schön, from PIE *skauniz "Ultimately, to E sʜᴏᴡ."

I think we have two compartments here:

1. ö/ē words - schön, E shown, shewn. Under Partridge [1] sʜᴇᴇɴ

2. ei words - G schein and E shine. OE scīnan, under Partridge [1] sᴄᴇɴᴇ

[1] My favorite reference: Eric Partridge: _Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of English_. More concise than the OED, and you can carry it.

As an English speaker, I'm delighted by the borrowing "ser schön". It is the highest grade in English catalogs of ancient coins. "Shiny" is not a good quality in ancient coins!

> The "German cognate is closer" is not helpful!

It is not helpful because comparing English from 1000 AD with Modern High German is the wrong premise to start off with.

The correct and more interesting comparison would be with Old High German from around the same time although it did not indicate the umlaut in the spelling at the time (which would happen 400-500 years later) – even though the i-umlaut had already developed.

So «schön» was «scōni» (or «sconi») in OHG. Also, ö and ü developed from /o/ and /u/, so juxtaposing them with English ē is likely incorrect.

Another Modern English cognate even closer to shyne than "sheen" is "shine" (and obviously the German "schein"). The words for "beautiful", "fair", "bright", "shining", "well-reputed", "righteous" have a long history of being related:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schinen#Middle_English (to shine, to appear)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skyr#Middle_English (clear-coloured, pale, light, luminous, radiant)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sciene#Old_English (beautiful, fair, brilliant, shining)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic... *skīnaną (to shine, to appear)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic... *skīriz (pure, clear, sheer)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic... *skauniz (beautiful, shining)

and ultimately the PIE

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Eur... *(s)ḱeh₁y- (to shine)

There are cognates absolutely everywhere in modern Germanic languages:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sk%C3%ADr#Icelandic skír (bright, clear, pure)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skir#Swedish (sheer, delicate, shining)

And even in Slavic languages:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/s... *sijati (to shine, to illuminate)

Skauniz was even borrowed to Proto-Finnic and highly conserved in modern Finnish, Estonian, Ingrian, etc. which all have kaunis meaning "beautiful"!

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/k... *kaunis

I resemble that remark!

For a modern semantic parallel, we might point to the phrase "she's quite a looker".

It's also interesting to see the words related to hearing and reputation; I'm thinking of Greek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleos and Slavic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs#Ethnonym where there's a whole thing about having people talk about you loudly (or, alternatively, being able to produce intelligible speech at all).

One way to say it that is understandable in modern English and Swedish: She shines with beauty/ Hon skiner av skönhet

> The words for "beautiful", "fair", "bright", "shining", "well-reputed", "righteous" have a long history of being related

Compare modern Mandarin 漂亮 ["beautiful", in most of the English senses of the word] and 亮 ["shine"].

Also, I just realized that Finnish loistava can mean either "excellent" or "shining", "radiant". Of course English also has, for instance, the phrase "shining example".

This makes sense in the Firefly universe, too. Shiny!

Words to do with light are so subtle between German and English. Like Kraftwerk tells me neon lights are "schimmerndes" in German, which I will take their word on, but they also say they are "shimmering" in English which is definitely not true.

scyn/schön/sheen are a different root from schein/shine, for what its worth.

Also I realise now "forlet" is very archaic in modern english whereas "verlassen" is very common in modern german, which would have helped.

What I just learned is that OE scīnan, to shine, gives OE scimrian, "to shine fitfully" [1]. Fascinating: Gothic skeima - torch, lantern.

[1] Eric Partridge: _Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. sᴄᴇɴᴇ paragraphs 8,9.

Also fascinating: "prob from Old Norse skaerr" "is English sheer, bright, hence pure, hence sole, hence also transparent, perpendicular" under paragraph 10.

and further down the rabbit-hole, OHG filu-berht, full bright. Name of St. Philibert, "whose day falls on August 22 early in the nutting season". Norman French noix de filbert.

Related? "How far back in time can you understand English?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47061614 18-feb-2026 399 comments

Thanks! I've added that to the toptext as well.

For a while, I mistakenly thought that “Germanic” meant related to German specifically. Old English makes more sense if you’re aware of Frisian, Dutch, and other non-Scandinavian Germanic languages, since that’s the area it originated from. German and Spanish make this distinction explicit (Deutsch/Germanisch and Alemán/Germánica).

I don't know the German speakers, but knowing both Dutch and English this text is more readable to me than using only modern English knowledge.

> For a while, I mistakenly thought that “Germanic” meant related to German specifically.

...it does. That's why the form of the word is "Germanic". That's what it means.

There are different levels at which you can be related to something. In this case the contrast is between Indo-European languages related to German and Indo-European languages not related to German (except through the shared ancestor called proto-Indo-European).

> German and Spanish make this distinction explicit (Deutsch/Germanisch and Alemán/Germánica).

I suspect the reason for that is that the first of each of those pairs is the native word and the second is borrowed from the English linguistic terminology.

There isn’t one singular “German.” Sure, there’s a standard form in the country Germany, but the language family is more diverse than that. My point is that the English terminology fuses the language family with the modern country of Germany.

>the second is borrowed from the English linguistic terminology.

Borrowed from Latin Germānicus, from Germāni.

Think a little harder. You can trace the word back that far. Is that how it got into German or Spanish?

That's a nice reconstruction. My old dead-tree Webster's Collegiate Dictionary has an essay in its foreword that covers the evolution of English in reverse order, ending with texts in Old Anglo-Saxon. The further back, the more alien it seemed. I'd need a lot of help with Middle English, and anything older would require the sort of major effort/rewriting discussed here. William the Conqueror set a huge linguistic change in motion with his little dust-up.

Really, even early Modern English (e.g. Shakespeare or the King James Bible) is pretty thick for today's English speakers.

I think it was earlier this week, or maybe last week, that someone on one of the frontpage posts recommended "The History of English Podcast".

I haven't finished the first episode yet, but it's already seeming promising and I know I'm going to continue with it.

In that first episode (which is basically an introduction), the host explains that the history of the English language can be divided into three periods: Old English, Middle English, and New English.

After establishing that there are three periods, he asks where we think Shakespeare falls, and I immediately thought it had to be Middle English.

Then the host proceeded to say he wouldn’t be surprised if most listeners guessed Old or Middle English—and that he wouldn’t be surprised at all if nobody guessed correctly. Because Shakespeare’s plays are actually classified as New English!

I smiled in surprise.

But he explained that if you can more or less understand the English being written or spoken, then it still falls under New English. The King James Version of the Bible is considered New English too.

Keep in mind, Shakespeare wrote his plays between 1589 and 1613.

The King James Bible was published in 1611.

So when I opened that link in this thread’s header and realized I couldn’t understand a damn thing, it all suddenly made sense!

The History of English Podcast gets much better once he gets into the groove of things and I'd definitely recommend sticking with it. I love all the random fun facts that come in most episodes, like where idioms came from, meaning behind the names of the days of the week, and how the word for hospital relates to Christians pilgrimaging to the Holy Land.

I've seen this recommended a few times here, and I've listened since the beginning. I'd recommend it. But it would be hard to catch up after nearly 14 years and 187 episodes (probably averaging an hour?) - I wonder if there's a shorter history of English somewhere.

Is it still in production? I mean are new episodes still being released? Because I haven't finished the first episode yet, but if all episodes are as interesting as the first, I'll finish all those 187 episodes in no time. Hahaha.

Still in production. The most recent episode was released 2025-12-31, and it looks like he's lately been putting them out every two months. (I subscribe to the Patreon; there are bonus episodes interspersed between the regular episodes.)

Update: episode 188 just dropped.

>I wonder if there's a shorter history of English somewhere.

I don't know what's a good podcast for it, but learning "linguistics/linguistic theory" I think is a more rewarding experience. Then when you listen to the history of english you'll have more insights.

> I've seen this recommended a few times here, and I've listened since the beginning.

That, uh, might be my fault. I’m the one who recommended it earlier this week. And I tend to recommend it any time anything related to English pops up.

> Because Shakespeare’s plays are actually classified as New English!

This... isn't normal terminology. From everything I've ever read, Shakespeare would be called "Early Modern English".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English

There isn't a term "New English". There's "Modern English".

You are right. Thanks.

Highly dependent on passage and writer imo, for anything before 1500

Some people I've had say middle english is easy enough to read now, and that's sometimes true, but if you drop some passages of Gawain or Pearl in front of people they'll be convinced it's an extra 2-300 years older. Anything non-London dialect is harder

Should be “1000 AD”, not “Ad”

Yep, I was expecting this to include an advertisement from 1000.

See Colin Gorrie's "How far back in time can you understand English?".[0]

[0]: https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-u...

If you find this interesting, try Nedersaksissk (low-Saxon) Wikipedia: https://nds-nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsassisk

It's fun for modern Dutch/Frisian speakers, most likely the same for German speakers. I think English won't be enough though.

It is interesting that Google translates the first paragraph of the text like this>>

"And the word he spoke was all like this. He was a hired hand, and he was full of malice, and he was in ƿælfæst. He didn't remember the man's name. He was in gefeohte(...)"

It says Icelandic.:)

Old english using "ne" as a negative concord is definitely borrowed from the french right?

No, Old English is pre-Norman invasion. I think you have (understandably) misunderstood what a "negative concord" means--it's when a double negative is still a negative, ie multiple negative elements agree with each other rather than cancel out. Like "I didn't hear no bell". A lot of languages are like this (eg Spanish).

In the OP article the sentence has both this "ne" and also a "never"

It goes all the way back to Indo-European. There wasn’t much French influence on English before the Norman invasion.

From what I’ve heard on “the history of English podcast”, after the Norman and invasion written English disappears completely for about a century. This is because the clergy and lawyers were the only literate people at the time, and they were all French. When it re-emerges, it doesn’t have much French in it yet, because only the common folk spoke English, and the norman upper class spoke French, and they didn’t interact that much. It actually took another 100 years or so for French words to percolate into the language.

What I learned from the podcast was that what really changed old English into Middle English was the viking invasion around 800. Danes and anglosaxons had different grammar and as a compromise a lot of the germanic cases on nouns, which allowed for arbitrary word ordering in a sentence, got discarded, and English developed the current emphasis on strict word ordering that we have today.

most of the english language words are derive from Sanskrit. Checkout : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Sansk...

I would rather like to see a fully modern rendition of this text. Even as English-first-language, I still find this hard to understand.

I used Claude to come up with this translation for the submission a couple days ago:

And what she said was all true (And that she said was all true). I married her (I wifed on her), and she was a very beautiful woman (and she was full beautiful wife), wise and steadfast in battle. I had never before met such a woman (Not met I never before such a woman). She was in battle as bold as any man, and yet her face was lovely and fair (and though however her countenance was winsome and fair).

But we are not at all free (But we nothing free not are), because we could never depart from Wulfsfleet (because we never not might from Wulfsfleet depart), unless we find the Lord and slay him (unless we the Lord find and him slay). The Lord has bound this place with cunning arts (The Lord has this place with cunning-crafts bound), so that no man may leave it (that no man not may it leave). We are here like birds in a net, like fish in a weir. And we seek him still (And we him seek yet), both together, husband and wife, through the dark streets of this grim place. May God help us nonetheless (However God us help)!

I've got a relatively early printed book, from 1575. It's a book about plants [1]. It's in old french and although I'm a native french speaker it is definitely not an easy read. Now it's as alien as the old english text in TFA but then it's from 1575, not 1000. If you take "french" from 1000, I take it it'd basically as unreadable for a native french speaker as that "english" text is for a native english speaker.

[1] btw my daughter loves that book because we gave her the name of a plant and that plant is described in that old book... But I only found that out way after she was born.

"Stede", besides German Stadt, Swedist stad, etc. is cognate to English stead, fossilized and now only occuring in the adverb "instead"/"in (someone's) stead" and a few compounds such as "farmstead" and "steadfast" (literally meaning "standing firmly (in place)"). "Steady" is of course also related.

It survives in modern Dutch too: in bedstede, steevast etc. Steevast mostly means always, but sometimes means firmly similar to modern English steadfast.

Fascinating