***And I feel I must ask this question that how is the 17th century English spoken like???***
Obviously there are no voice recordings available from that far back in history, but one of the best sources of what the normal everyday educated 17th century English was like (in England) are the diaries of the famous English diarist, Samuel Pepys. He was born in 1633 and died in 1703, and he was educated at Magdalen College in Cambridge, where the originals of his diaries are preserved. They covered the period c 1660 to 1669, when failing eyesight forced him to give up writing. As this was done with a quill pen, a lot of the time my candlelight, it had a deleterious effect on his eyes.
He was employed as a high ranking official in the English Naval Office, and his diaries gave first hand dramatic accounts of notable events of the period, including the Great Plague of 1665 and the Great Fire of London the following year. He was an incurable philanderer with a roaming hand, and in describing his activities in this direction he used a form of "secret Language". You can check that out in the link below. He certainly gave his poor wife Elizabeth a hard time.....especially when the luscious Deborah (Debs) joined his household as parlourmaid.
So Pepys' diaries give a pretty good idea of written educated English in 17th century England. He never held back with his graphic terms, and words which were commonly used in society (not so sure of polite society, but certainly generally) in his day are now classed as "taboo" and would never appear in similar publications today......but certainly used "informally".
http://www.pepys.info/
What about Shakespeare's works then?
Maybe too literate?
<a href='http://www.yahoo.com'></a>Welcome!
http://www.areaseo.com/improvepr/ <a href='http://www.areaseo.com'>improve pagerank default</a>. <a href="http://www.areaseo.com ">PageRank 11</a>: Web Site Analysis, SE marketing, High Rankings. Also [url]http://www.areaseo.com/linksale/[/url] and [link=http://www.areaseo.com]google rank 20[/link] from pagerank .
english accents are chick magnets, went to canada, the girls loved it, personally hate the northoners accents in the uk, cant help it really, they try to sound so tough that they confuse their own words and sound totaly stupid, daft idiots
true, goerdies dont even speak english, they speak some next hybrid language made up of some english words and other codewords, which no one except them understand lol
Now, now pet. We're awwight.
Northerners ARE tougher and hardier than Southerners.
If there was a fight between a gang of Scousers and a gang from Surrey, I know who'd win.
Those from Surrey would just nuke the Scousers.
Funny about all the Irish are tugs posts earlier,strange thing is whenever I go to spain for holidays the resorts are full of germans,english and Irish,and out of all those the english are the loudest,most obnoxious people.
I think he means thugs but his point still stands.
Im rather fond of my South Carolina (American) accent. Its not thick or too strong. Its a nice soft twang and its easy to understand.
"In all fairness it was England who took over the rest of the country and now you are trying to get out of it after robbing the other places of their natural resources. Why don't you lot vote on the matter."
Celtic imperialism.
The Guardian.
Monday 24th April 2006
St George is Cross - English Parliament
The English are the subjects of Celtic imperialism, and very soon they are going to wake up to this fact.
I bet most people reading this blog didn't much care that it was St George's Day yesterday. Unlike the Scots, the Welsh, and especially the Irish, who proudly celebrate their national day, the English are largely oblivious to April 23. While Celts take great delight from wrapping themselves in their national flags, English people aren't even always sure which one is theirs. Is it the union jack, they wonder vaguely, or the St George's cross?
I think this is because most of us feel it's a bit unnecessary to make a song and dance about being English. After all, don't "we" run the kingdom? This assumption is so widespread, you seldom even hear it spelt out. The English just take it for granted. As I will show, however, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we don't even run England. We have sleepwalked into a democratic muddle that leaves England not dominating its Scottish and Welsh neighbours, but actually under their rule.
The Scots have their own parliament. The Welsh have their national assembly. But the English have only Westminster - where Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs wield over 100 crucial votes, far more than Tony Blair's majority of 69. If you count only the English MPs in Westminster, Labour's majority shrinks to around 30.
It may sound like arcane political arithmetic, but what this means in practice is that policies that affect only England - on schools, hospitals or the police - can become law, even if a majority of English MPs vote against them.
This actually happened in the recent votes on foundation hospitals and university top-up fees. Both bills affected only England. Yet both only became law thanks to the support of Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs. The policies didn't have the support of England's representatives, so why should they become English law? The English are no longer the citizens of a democracy, but the subjects of Celtic imperialism - and very soon they are going to wake up to this fact.
It would happen as soon as Gordon Brown took over as prime minister. Why should someone whose constituents' health and education are in the hands of the Scottish parliament be in charge of such matters for the English? The English know Brown's heart lies in Scotland, and it makes them suspicious. During Euro '96 he promised to get his extensive political entourage of fellow Scots into the Scotland v England game, and ended up blagging nearly 60 tickets. He recently shrugged off the importance of the Olympics in private, dismissing it thus:"That's for the English."
Brown is aware of his vulnerability in this area, which is why he keeps giving speeches on "Britishness". But rhetoric won't be enough; Brown needs to make some practical commitments. It is imperative in my view, for example, that his son John goes to school in London rather than Fife.
But Brown could do something far bolder. It would take everyone by surprise, and it would prove his commitment to England and democracy beyond doubt. He should propose that only English MPs be allowed to vote on English matters.
It would make it more difficult for Brown to get all his proposals through parliament. And it would mean we had a prime minister who couldn't even vote on some of his own legislation. But it would also mean that every Briton lived in a democracy. For once, voters would see a political leader willing to do something out of principle rather than self-interest.
If Brown doesn't take this radical step, the Tories eventually will. They accept that devolution is here to stay, but can also see that the current system is unfair. William Hague has already gone on record to demand: "English MPs should have exclusive say over English laws," and David Davis, the shadow home secretary, supports an English parliament. "The people of England deserve nothing less," Davis insists, "than the same choice as the people of Wales and Scotland."
The Tories plan on using this issue to undermine Gordon Brown. David Cameron recently sanctioned his inner circle to start murmuring about the chancellor's "Scottish problem", and they will use the logic of English MPs controlling English issues to suggest it would be constitutionally undemocratic to have a Scottish PM.
Brown must be careful not to let them succeed. In a system devolved for everyone - not just the Celts - of course a Scot could still be prime minister. A whole host of issues - not least the economy and defence - are decided for the UK as a whole. But Brown will need to get this message across quickly, or risk being dangerously discredited. Pretending the issue doesn't exist could fatally backfire.
For years, politicians on all sides have steered clear of this issue, judging that there aren't many votes in it. Up until now, they've probably been right to. It is extraordinary how little the English care about their national flag, their patron saint or their national day. But the prospect of a non-English PM in a post-devolution democracy is going to make the voters wake up. The modern dragon in our midst - this disenfranchisement of the English - will have to be slain. England will, as democracy demands, have to be governed by the English. As G K Chesterton once warned: "Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget; For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet."
guardian.co.uk