Why can't the English read anything from before 1700?

A cook they hadde with hem for the nones
To boille the chiknes with the marybones,
And poudre-marchant tart and galyngale.
Wel koude he knowe a draughte of londoun ale.
He koude rooste, and sethe, and broille, and frye,
Maken mortreux, and wel bake a pye.
But greet harm was it, as it thoughte me,
That on his shyne a mormal hadde he.
For blankmanger, that made he with the beste

No Englishman could read this.

Attached: qassiarsuk-in-south-greenland-by-mads-pihl-1400x933.jpg (1400x933, 134.09K)

I'm Italian and I understand that, what are you talking about.

a hint that your language is a joke

Thou are not a Englishman

I know.
the English people cant read it.
it if funny when I can but they cant' I am not one English.
I am not.

>before 1700
That’s the description of the Cook from the General Prologue of the Canterbury Tales, written in the late 14th century.
Retard

imagine if english spelling was phonetic, it would be impossible for us to understand eachother

Attached: 1582884049931.jpg (976x850, 57.91K)

You can understand what's being said there it just looks weird. Earlier than 1500 though and it's a right mess

Do you know what "before 1700" means?

Look at his flag, m8

>american reading comprehension
Christ almigthy.

… this helps my point in a way.
cope.
I can read things written over 700 years ago in my language, and pronounce them properly, and in my other I can read things over 1000 years old.

So what? Languages evolving is interesting, nothing wrong with it. Seeing as you can actually read what you posted it's a bad example anyway, should've posted chaucer or something

It’s just dishonest to say “before 1700” and then quote something that’s several centuries older than that. It’s like saying “English speakers can’t understand Englush written before 1900 wtf” and then quoting Beowulf

Why is everyone pretending that they can understand this? What is a galyngale. What is ‘Maken motreux’?

Being able to pronounce it in your head and understanding it are two different things.

hahahaha.
no it isn't.
everyone respects the greeks for keeping their language very close to the original forms. no one respects the English for corrupting their language.
>should've posted Chaucer
no one tell him.

Beowulf wasn't in English...

imagine not understanding old texts lmao

Attached: Segunda_parte_del_ingenioso_caballero_don_Quijote_de_la_Mancha.jpg (690x1137, 905.93K)

how far can Spanish go?
can they read el cid with little problems?

there are dutch words in there

Would encourage you to live in the real world mate

yeah. I do. Scotland. more real than "England".

they aren't dutch. both were shared words until the English lost them.

>can they read el cid with little problems?
yes

Grow up, the scots meme isn't funny unless you're actually making a joke

It is

the time it was written "English" hadn't split from the continent and was considered the same language up until at least the 10th century.

nice. we would but all of our ancient works were lost in the protestant revolution. I think he only have one left. basically 900 years of books lost. sade.

That’s totally untrue. Countless contemporary sources refer to the “Englisc” language. It is not mutually intelligible with Old High German or even Old Frisian

yes it was. modern frissian is mutually intelgible with that "English".

>my arbitrary combination of guttural sounds is better than your arbitrary combination of guttural sounds, because it's older!
no, it isn't.

Attached: 1476470938587.png (560x407, 36.35K)

Yeah but we still use them