This channel exists to encourage the learning of the Old English language. The material it contains is freely available to all irrespective of race, nationality, religion, gender or any other attribute. So please enjoy it and share it with others. The pronunciation used in this channel follows that of Stephen Pollington as given in his book, 'First Steps in Old English' and an accompanying CD.
Many of the files used on this channel can be found at: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mkQbjpmxTsCQn7Gyew5FyVe56cH1DUj_?usp=sharing
Very interesting to compare Wulfstan's amplified translation of the Apostles' Creed and an earlier translation that adheres more closely with the Latin.
The Anglo-Saxons never really bothered the Irish....except when they came to raid or attack English kingdoms. It was the Normans who started all that s**t.
I think it's funny that g is written like in standard German and Dutch but pronounced as in the eastern dialects like Plautdietsch, East Prussian or Berlin dialects.
I'm curious that in several places you put a schwa after consonants (e.g., after the H in Hwæt and after the r at the end of several words). This is different from some of the videos I've found by other people and I wondered if you could say more about the basis for doing this. Thanks very much!
Thank you for your question! The use of a schwa (ə) sound after consonants, such as in "Hwæt" and at the end of words, is a topic of some debate among scholars and enthusiasts of Old English. Here’s a bit more about why you might hear that in my videos: Phonological Background 1.) Hwæt (Hwǣt): - In Old English, "Hwæt" is often used as an exclamation to draw attention, roughly equivalent to "Listen!" or "Lo!" in modern English. The pronunciation of this word has been the subject of various interpretations. - Adding a schwa after the initial "H" (making it sound like "Həwæt") is an attempt to capture a pronunciation that reflects the oral tradition and the fluidity of spoken Old English, as it might have been articulated in a natural speech pattern. It’s meant to reflect the breathy onset of the word. 2.) Final Consonants: - Old English had a rich variety of endings that included unstressed vowels, often represented in writing by letters such as "e" or "a." In some dialects or pronunciations, these final unstressed vowels might have been pronounced lightly, resembling a schwa sound. - The pronunciation with a schwa after a final "r" or other consonants at the end of words can be seen as a way to soften the ending, aligning with how spoken language often works in practice, particularly in poetic or informal contexts. Different Interpretations - Regional Variations: Old English was not a monolithic language; it had several dialects, including West Saxon, Mercian, and Northumbrian. These dialects could have variations in pronunciation, and the use of a schwa might reflect one of these regional differences. - Modern Reconstructions: Different scholars and enthusiasts may rely on various sources and linguistic reconstructions, leading to variations in how Old English is pronounced today. Some may choose a more conservative, "purist" approach, while others might incorporate elements they believe better represent the spoken language’s fluidity. Personal Approach - My inclusion of the schwa aims to offer a rendition that captures the rhythmic and melodic qualities of Old English as a spoken language. It’s an interpretative choice that seeks to make the recitation more engaging and closer to what might have been heard in an Old English-speaking community. I hope this helps clarify why you might hear a schwa in my videos. It’s one of several valid approaches to pronouncing Old English, reflecting both historical scholarship and interpretive performance choices. Thank you for watching and for your insightful question!
@@oldenglishforeveryone-robe8279 Wow, thanks for being so generous with your time and giving such a thorough and thoughtful reply, this really helps set things in context. I'm still very new to OE and your perspective is extremely interesting and useful!
Quite a few are understandable today. I remember in school fifty eight years ago when I started secondary school a teacher pronounced 'what' as 'hwhat'. It's interesting to see The Lord's Prayer developing from Old English, Middle English to Modern English. Knowing what it is makes it understandable.
Old English is much more like modern Dutch than modern English. Which always makes it interesting to have commentators discuss old English without referencing that fact, which puts it all a bit in a vacuum.
Robert, Could you do a video of conversation old english but of these ages? I mean, conversational regarding topics of these time "what is your profession?" "I am a nobleman/fisherman/warrior/etc" and talking about idk, the viking raids, religion, wars, invasions, gold or whathever.
Hello Aaron and thank you for your question. I will eventually get around to making the sorts of videos you are asking about. In the meantime I am focussing on contemporary contexts for now. You might find something of what you are after in the History and Culture and Short stories playlists?
please Robert, never stop making this videos! they are really helpful. I am learning old english and Norse from Argentina (I am doing a translator career and got interested in old languages, archaeology and I took some courses of it as well), and here we don't have any academies or things like that were we can study old languages. You are helping my dream of learning old english true. Honestly, I would like to contact you to ask you a couple of questions regarding Old English, If you can throw me your email It woulbe incresible. Cheers from Argentina.
Did Old English have two versions of the indefinite article (e.g., "a" and "an") or only one? My quick research tells me only "an," with the "a" pronounced as the "a" in "car."
In Old English, there was only one form of the indefinite article, which was typically spelled as "ān" and pronounced with the initial vowel sound similar to the "a" in Modern English "father." This form was used before words beginning with a vowel sound. There wasn't a separate form like "a" used before consonant sounds. So, your research is correct.
I'm intrigued why sixty was followed by hund-seventy. It's almost like they wanted to underline the difference between seventy and seventeen at that point. I presume hund refers to hundred?
You're right, hund refers to one hundred. According to Peter Baker's book, 3rd Edition, page 98, the earliest Germanic languages counted in twelves with sixty being significant in the sense that one hundred is today.
My friend never stop posting videos on old English. It's really helpful for language enthusiastics. It's really hard to find any old English channel on RU-vid
Hello Mark. You are right, 'him' is a dative plural meaning 'them' but I chose the Modern English word 'they' to make the translation easier to read when I should have just said 'the people', although in hindsight, it doesn't seem to be such a good idea now. The use of 'they' suggests a nominative subject and not a dative form. I have another version of this video on the channel in which I just say 'the people's. This video is titled, King Alfred defeats the Danish Army in 878AD.
Hello - I need to ask a favour. I've included some sketchy Old English in my novel and the audiobook is being recorded in the next few days. I've managed to pull out most of the pronunciations I need from your brilliant videos, but I have three words I'm still stuck on, as below. Excuse my homemade phonetics: cepan (as in keep...in a line 'where do you keep your fishes') - is it kay-pan .. so h-war kay-pan thu theen fishas fiscere (as in fisherman) - also unsure of which part of this word is stressed....I think it's fi-SHARE-uh Genesis - is this exactly the same as the modern English? Any help would be amazing, thanks so much in advance.
The verb cēpan is pronounced kay-pun. you could say for example, Iċ cēpe hit = I keep it (Itch kay-peh hit). The noun fiscere is pronounced fish-eh-reh. Don't forget to trill your r's. Hwǣr cēpest|cēpst þū þīn fiscas? You could also say, Hwǣr ġe-healdest þū þīne fiscas? Finally, I am not sure about this one but, Genesis = Ġenesīs (Yen-eh-seeess).
@@oldenglishforeveryone-robe8279 this is so kind, thank you. And unbeliveably helpful - I really appreciate it. It looks like I got the cepan usage wrong and it should be cepest not cepan in the line I'm using? Typeset now, so will have to blame it on the character! Thanks again.
Ƿes hāl, Robert. Another excellent and informative video. Surprisingly informative to see every day conversational English translated into Old English. With respect to the trilling of the letter R, I am fortunate that my mother is Dutch, and whilst she would use the "normal" Aussie pronunciation of the letter R when speaking to my brothers and myself, she would roll (trill) the letter when speaking to her parents and siblings in her native language, thus I learnt how to roll my Rs very early on in life. Of course, I never foresaw how useful that would become. 😁 I find myself constantly surprised and fascinated at the origins of many of the words we take for granted in our day to day conversations, but I'm not sure my children share my sense of awe. 🤣 Be well.
Thank you for that! I'm glad you like the videos. You are lucky to have learnt to trill the letter 'r' early in life. It took me almost two years to learn later in life! There is quite a bit in Old English that is familiar to us today and quite a lot that looks foreign. Nonetheless it is our language. Wes hal! Cheers, Rob.
The best answer I can give is they come from the region that is now northern Germany and southern Denmark. The notion of German and Danish identities is a modern construct.
I have a sincere interest in learning Old English, but I have a hard time making my tongue roll like that, would people still be able to understand me in a conversation? And do you have any recommendations where I can get some affordable textbooks on this subject? Thank you. :)
It took me almost two years to roll my r's so be patient because it will happen. Even without rolling your r's people will still be able to understand you. I just uploaded a video in which I talk about your question - Conversational Old English - 12. There is a lot of free material on the web that is very good. I like many texts from Bruce Mitchell's to Peter Baker's and Reading Old English A Primer And First Reader - Revised Edition by Robert Hasenfratz and Thomas Jambeck. Also, my notes are freely available on the link provided on my channel.
@@oldenglishforeveryone-robe8279 I'll be sure to give it a look thank you very much. :) My parents asked me where the sudden desire to learn ancient English came from, I just simply told them sometimes the old ways are best. :) I also wish more people were willing to learn this because well I think modern English has allowed for way too much slang and way too much abuse that of our ancient ancestors were to come back today I have a feeling they wouldn't be very happy with us.
@@Doug19752533 Good point. "Insular G (majuscule: Ᵹ, minuscule: ᵹ) is a form of the letter g somewhat resembling an ezh, used in the medieval insular script of Great Britain and Ireland. It was first used in the Roman Empire in Roman cursive, then it appeared in Irish half uncial (insular) script, and after it had passed into Old English, it developed into the Middle English letter yogh (Ȝ ȝ). Middle English, having reborrowed the familiar Carolingian g from the Continent, began to use the two forms of g as separate letters." www.wikiwand.com/en/Insular_G We do need to be careful not to confuse the two.
Ic þancie þē, min frēond. Excellent video! A quick question: Would the name "Pete" be pronounced similar to the word "pate" (a person's head)? I'm taking inspiration from the vowel change in the OE word fēt (feet). I've had a casual interest in learning Old English for a while now, but it would appear that I have been well and truly bitten by the bug, so to speak! Subscribed. Ƿes hāl.
Þanciġe þē! For the Modern English name Pete you could use Pēta and for the full version, Peter, you could use "Pētra" or "Pēter". Ic gēōnde bīġange tō gehīeranne of þīnum fremminge on leornunga ġeġearwunge Englisċra ǣlda.
Very interesting, and I read it in other comments as well but this is close to Dutch, for example how you pronounce 19 ( Dutch: negentien) and 22 ( tweeëntwintig) sound like dialect Dutch or even South African.
Since the Germanic peoples and Norse people were so similar even down to religion and even the names of their gods why didn’t they mix more? In theory within the mythology could Norse and Germanic people go to Valhalla together?
In Norse mythology, Valhalla is the great hall in Asgard where the god Odin receives the souls of brave warriors who have died in battle. It is believed that those who have fallen in battle honorably are chosen by Valkyries and taken to Valhalla, where they will prepare for the ultimate battle of Ragnarok. While Valhalla is a specific concept within Norse mythology, Germanic mythology shares some similarities but may have slightly different interpretations. In terms of the relationship between Norse and Germanic mythology, it is important to note that they have significant overlaps and similarities in their belief systems and cultural practices. Both Norse and Germanic mythologies have strong warrior cultures and belief in an afterlife where valor in battle is highly esteemed. While the details of the afterlife in Germanic mythology might not be exactly the same as those in Norse mythology, it is plausible to imagine that, within the context of mythology, individuals from both cultures who met the criteria of bravery and honor in battle might have been thought to go to a similar afterlife, where they would be revered and celebrated for their valor. However, it's important to emphasize that these are mythological concepts and vary across different sources and interpretations. The specific details and beliefs about the afterlife for Norse and Germanic people may have differed based on regional variations and cultural practices.
@@oldenglishforeveryone-robe8279 Ok so it’s possible a Germanic person could go to Valhalla and vice versa? Are there accounts of Germanic people and Norse mixing? Like living together and maybe marrying eachother? Maybe fighting alongside eachother? I know that the Norsemen fought the Saxons in England and also the Celts in Ireland. And the Normans brought over many things from French culture and language. But then again the Normans weren’t fully Scandinavian. And the Scandinavians are a Germanic people right?
The Norse where Germanic in culture. Germanic denotes the ancient culture of Scandinavia, Northern, and North Eastern Germany. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden where home to Germanic tribes, as well as native peoples such as the fins and sammi cultures. There are three types of Germanic subculture groups based on language evolution and do not all three of these languages evolved out of an ancestral language, hence why they are so similar and why speakers of one could with some difficulty understand speakers of the other two. These three cultural groups are North Germanic, Western Germanic, and Eastern Germanic. The North Germanic tribes are usually called the Norse, and they are usually classified in three tribal groupings: The Danes who originate in Skane county Sweden, the Svear also known as the Swedes, and the Northmenn also known as the Norwegians. These tribal groups roughly speak old Norse with dialect varying tribe by tribe and region. West Germanic tribes originally come from Denmark and northern Germany. Saxons, Angles, Jutes, and the Frisians these people roughly spoke old English. And I can’t help you with Eastern Germanic tribes I know very little about them apart from the Goths. And I think Huns became considered one at one point. Old English and old Norse where compatible languages to a degree, a speaker of one could roughly understand a speaker of the other with minor translation or grammar errors. Likewise Germanic paganism while having a few gods in common also had minor tribal deities unique to each tribe such as Saxnot for the Saxons, in their myths Saxnot is a son of Odin, but Saxnot does not exist in say the Danish version of the myths who had Loki as their tribal gods because they separated the masculine aspects of Odin with the feminine aspects of Odin making the feminine aspects into a new god. Do keep in mind I could be wrong and I would encourage you to do your own research, this channel is more knowledgeable than I am, also check out Doctor Jackson Crawford, Norse Magic and Beliefs, and Survive the Jive. All three have a RU-vid channels by those names.
@@robertdavie1221 Oh Dr Jackson Crawford has his own channel I think, Norse Magic and Beliefs, and Survive the Jive where the three. There are I think two more that I am trying to remember I know Dr Crawford did a video with an Anglo-Saxon/Old English major and they spoke and held a conversation in Old Norse (Dr Crawford) and Old English (The other guy). Norse Magic and Beliefs is a Norwegian that runs a channel about Norse culture specifically, while Survive the Jive does ancient Germanic culture across the board. Though I am going to be honest while I do appreciate Survive the Jive and his content and knowledge, he is a total Euro centric man that speaks of pan germanicism and other very umm problematic theories that some could construe as racist. Still despite that one obvious flaw Survive the Jive has an excellent channel and knows in my view quite abit about old English and old Norse culture. And of course you’re very own channel has been an amazing help and I do appreciate it as well, so thank you the video was highly informative even if I was a contrarian in my other post.
I do know that the pre-Christian Russia was called HYPERBOREA supposedly because of its utopianism and extreme war like mentality. but all 3 of european major empires..british germans and russians had a war like mentality. vary different than for example irish Polish Danish
The warrior culture of the Anglo-Saxons underwent significant changes after their conversion to Christianity. The introduction of Christianity brought about shifts in their beliefs, values, and social structures, which gradually transformed their warrior culture. Some notable changes included: Shift in Beliefs: With the acceptance of Christianity, the Anglo-Saxons embraced new religious beliefs and practices. The Christian faith emphasized peace, forgiveness, and humility, which gradually influenced their approach to warfare and conflict. Code of Conduct: The Christian teachings encouraged a more tempered and humane approach to battle, emphasizing the values of mercy and forgiveness. This led to the development of a new code of conduct that promoted chivalry and honor on the battlefield. New Forms of Leadership: The rise of Christian leaders, such as bishops and monks, alongside traditional rulers, brought changes in the social and political structures. The integration of Christian leadership alongside traditional chieftains led to the establishment of a more complex and layered system of governance. Cultural Synthesis: The fusion of Christian and Anglo-Saxon traditions gave birth to a unique blend of customs and practices. Elements of the older warrior culture were often integrated with Christian values, creating a distinct Anglo-Saxon Christian identity. Literary Themes: Christian themes began to influence the literary works of the Anglo-Saxons. While heroic tales continued to be celebrated, Christian themes of redemption, salvation, and spiritual struggle started to emerge in their literature. Art and Architecture: Christian motifs started appearing in their art and architecture, gradually replacing or blending with traditional pagan symbols. This integration of Christian symbolism transformed the visual culture of the Anglo-Saxons. Community Development: The construction of churches and monasteries fostered the growth of Christian communities, providing alternative paths for societal development beyond the traditional focus on warfare and conquest. Overall, the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons led to a gradual transformation of their warrior culture, bringing about changes in their belief systems, social structures, and artistic expressions. While elements of their traditional warrior culture persisted, the infusion of Christian values significantly altered the fabric of their society and identity.
@@oldenglishforeveryone-robe8279 It didn’t change one bit how they conducted warfare, neither did it for the Danes. Only so many ways to fight in a shield wall.
@@jarlwilliam9932 Yes, at the tactical level I agree. My response was more general than that as it dealt with the change in the culture, something that is far broader than tactical matters.
@@robertdavie1221It really didnt change that at all, Godwinson didn’t care about mercy when he fell upon Hardrada’s army, just started slaughtering them. Sure Alfred and his children showed mercy and leniency toward Guthrum but that was more a power play then out of the goodness of their hearts. While Christianity is a profoundly well better religion than old Germanic paganism, emphasizing love for humanity and the statement that humans should treat each other with dignity, humans are well humans and all cultures fight sometimes for the fun of it. I would argue that the only real difference Christianity made was it provided an organized religion with writing, and better record keeping which leads to greater logistics and industry giving the Saxons far greater military projection capabilities then they had before. Tenth century Wessex led England was an all too different animal then pagan England.
It is closer to the Northern Germanic languages than what modern German is.. You can clearly see that the geographic origin must be close somewhere close to Denmark and the Low countries... Borderline Old North/West Germanic.
It is the "core grammar of English" argument versus the "vocabulary of English" argument. Most of the core grammar.. Word order.. and such is actually more Norse.. Whereas a lot of the larger vocabulary contains a lot more Old West Germanic But English itself is more like a creolisation of Olde Danish and Aenglisc.. People are choosing to ignore that the Danes dominated England for a very long time.. And that it had a large impact on the language.
I have a question about the first example “ridan.” I am confused about “ic/ heo ridende”- I thought you would need an auxiliary verb with the present participle “ridende”?
Hello Lori and thank you for spotting that. You are correct, the sentence needs to include an auxiliary verb and should be, Iċ eom mīn hors rīdan. In Early West Saxon Old English, two verbs could be used together to form a compound verb, but this typically required the use of an auxiliary verb. For example, the auxiliary verb "beon" (to be) could be used with the present participle form of another verb to create a compound verb phrase. So, for the sentence "I am riding my horse," you would use the auxiliary verb "eom" (am) followed by the present participle "rīdende" (riding): "Iċ eom rīdende mīn hors." This structure allows two verbs to appear next to each other in Early West Saxon Old English while maintaining grammatical correctness. In Early West Saxon Old English, the phrase "Hēo rīdende þæt hors" would typically include an auxiliary verb to be grammatically correct. The correct form would be: "Hēo is rīdende þæt hors." This translates to "She is riding the horse" in Modern English.
just found out your channel this is pretty rock, I've been reading some Chaucer in middle English but I want to go further in the language and this will definitely help, thank you
Yes to "hu gaeþ þu". The use of þe could be because the speaker has referred to themselves first and so they would be the subject which is in the nominative hence, þu. The word 'gast' refers to breath or a guest as you can see here: bosworthtoller.com/search?q=gast According to Chatgpt the difference between the two forms you give in your question is, "In Old English, both "Hū gǣþ þē" and "Hū gǣþ þū" are correct and can be used to ask "How are you?" The difference lies in the formality of the pronoun used: "Hū gǣþ þē" is more formal and polite, using the second person singular pronoun "þē," which is equivalent to the modern English "you." It would be appropriate when addressing someone with respect or in a more formal setting. "Hū gǣþ þū" is less formal and uses the second person singular pronoun "þū," which is equivalent to the modern English "thou" (informal, archaic). It would be used when addressing someone in a more familiar or informal context. Both versions were used in Old English, and the choice between them depended on the social context and the relationship between the speakers."
Yes. Yes it should be. Please do not rely on ChatGPT for questions about OE, it does not know what it is talking about, almost everything in the above comment is wrong.
Thanks for the lessons. I would learn this as it is interesting but it is difficult and i dont have the time for it. I will still look at the language but your videos are more of a history lesson. Thanks again.
