Early Modern English for Authors (A.K.A. Luna-speak) · 10:46am Apr 13th, 2014
Note: I'm cross-posting this from my blog. You may want to read it there since WordPress allows me to use fancier markup like proper section headers, definition lists, and tables.
IMPORTANT: You'll also want to read Cosmic Cowboy/Aurora-Borealis's Luna for Dummies (fimfic post) for a proper guide to when to actually use Early Modern English.
Last Updated: August 30th, 2019
Since I seem to keep offering this advice to people over and over, here's a little guide (which I'll probably amend as things occur to me) on the simple, easy-to-remember rules for writing believable Early Modern English dialogue.
Given that I tend to just advise people on the bits relevant to their dialog, this will be much longer and more comprehensive.
1. Second-Person Singular Pronouns
In English today, we use you/your/yours as our all-purpose second-person pronoun family. However, that was not always the case.
As is still the case in modern French, Early Modern English had two sets of second-person pronouns:
- One you used for speaking formally or addressing groups of people ("you" in English, "vous" in French).
- One you used for talking to a single friend or family member or, in some cases, for showing disrespect for a stranger ("thou" in English, "tu" in French).
Using these pronouns is very simple.
- Thou is the subject of the sentence, just like "I", "we", "you", "he", "she", and "they".
- Thee is the object of the sentence, just like "me", "us", "you", "him", "her", and "them".
- Thy is the transitive posessive form, just like "my", "our", "your", "his", "her", and "their".
- Thine is the intransitive posessive form, just like "mine", "ours", "yours", "his", "hers", and "theirs".
You can remember these by recognizing that "thee" rhymes with "me", "thy" with "my", and "thine" with "mine" and there's a great chart in the Declension section of the Wikipedia "Thou" article.
Now this does require special verb forms, but they're ridiculously simple to remember. Just stick "st" or "est" (Whichever feels right. This was before standard spelling) onto the end of the verb "thou" directly applies to.
Here are some examples of properly constructed sentences:
"Dost thou know him?"
"Thou knowest that he hateth thee."
There are irregular verbs, but only five of them and they're only irregular in the sense that you crunch things down even more to avoid awkwardness: Instead of "Thou arest", "You are" is "Thou art"; Instead of "Thou willst", "You will" is "Thou wilt".
2. Proper use of "mine" and "thine"
In modern English, we say "my eyes" but, to a speaker of Early Modern English, that would be like saying "a apple" or "a enemy"... and feel like an awkward stutter.
Instead, "my" becomes "mine" and "thy" becomes "thine" if the next word starts with a vowel, much like we still say "an apple" rather than "a apple".
"My hat, mine eyes." "Thy hat, thine eyes."
Again, this has a parallel in modern French where, most of the time, you only say the terminal consonant in a word as a way to smoothly flow into the starting vowel on the next word.
3. Proper use of "Ye"
No, this is not about "ye olde shoppe". That's just "the old shop". (There was a period of time before standard spelling when we'd also been forced to abandon the letter Thorn (Þ and þ) by things like Italian-made printing type but hadn't settled on "th" as a replacement yet.)
I'm talking about the pronoun "ye", which was used before the meaning of "you" became more general. Just like "thou" and "thee" are subject and object, "ye" and "you" are also a subject-object pair.
"Ye gave of your own riches."
That's it. There are even a couple of places in modern writing where we still quote it. Specifically, "Oh, ye of little faith." and "Hear ye, hear ye!"
4. Proper use of the "-eth" suffix on verbs
You've probably seen phrases like "my cup runneth over". That's what we're talking about. Surprisingly, "-eth" is just the old way to form the present tense of the third-person singular.
Now, we say "God gives and he takes away". Then, we said "God giveth and he taketh away." (I don’t have a lisp. I’m just archaic!)
5. Proper use of "Shall"
"Shall" is an interesting verb because it took me a while to assemble a simple explanation. Nowadays, we mostly use "will" in its place but that wasn't always so.
Basically, "shall" is to "will" as "should" is to "would". Compare "shall we?" and "will we?"
Using "shall" carries a connotation of intent, command, order, or prophecy. (eg. "Thou shalt not kill")
In archaic English, where the use of "shall" is expected, using "will" carries the opposite connotation rather than being neutral. "I shall fall asleep" indicates that it's a decision you've made, so "I will fall asleep" carries an undercurrent of "whether I want to or not" by contrast.
As a side note, this means that "shan't" (the contraction of "shall not") is used in many places where, now, we'd often use "won't".
6. Use of contractions
Given how much of the archaic English we write is spoken by nobles, I should remind less experienced authors that, when speaking that formally, you typically avoid contractions like "won't" and "shan't" because "will not" and "shall not" help to reinforce the sense of conviction in your words (which, as a royal, translates to using the might of a political entity to back it up).
7. Use of the "do" auxilliary verb
In the past, people were more likely to save "do" for places where they needed emphasis, so your Early Modern English dialogue can use things like "Dare I?" instead of "Do I dare?" and "I dare not" instead of "I don't dare" to feel more accurate.
8. Use of "whom"
While many people say things like "to who" today, with "whom" dying off because it doesn't lend any additional expressive power, if you ask your grandparents (or even your parents, depending on the school they went to), they'll probably tell you that it was drummed into them that "to who" is bad grammar because "who" is the subject and "whom" is the object.
("Who gave it to whom?")
The same principle applies with derived words like whoever (whomever) and so on. As with Thou, the Wikipedia page for Whom is also easy to understand and very helpful in getting used to what has been trimmed from common use.
9. Know the vernacular
One of the biggest differences between Modern English and believable Archaic English is the same as between American English and British English: Which synonyms people prefer when speaking informally.
For example, here are a few of the words and phrases I can think of which can help your archaic speech:
- You have my gratitude (I'm grateful)
- Surely you jest (You've gotta be joking)
- Had I but known (If only I'd known)
- Nary (never a/not any, as "nary a sound")
- Nigh (near/nearly, as in "Our doom is nigh" or "Nigh-impregnable")
- Nought (nothing, as in "It was all for nought")
- Tarry (Wait/stay/delay, as in "I mustn't tarry longer".)
- 'Tis (An archaic contraction of "it is" which was used as casually as we now use "they're" or "isn't". Given that there was no standard spelling at the time, I prefer to write "T'is" so it's not mistaken for an opening single quote with no matching closing quote.)
- Unto (Like "upon" or "to", but indicating an indirect object, as in "Bestowed unto him")
- Unto (Synonym for "until", as in "unto death")
- Yay and Nay (yes and no)
- Yea (so/this, as in "About yea high")
- Yonder (This/That/Here/There/Those, indicating a place. Eg. "Over yonder" or "yonder valley")
- Yon (A synonym for "yonder" that may sound more natural in some places. For example, "hither and yon" for "here and there".)
- Ensue (eg. "chaos ensued")
- Employ (in its role as a synonym for "use")
- Singular (we used to use it instead of "unique". See, for example, Dr. Watson having thought of Sherlock Holmes as a "singular" occurrence, not a "unique" occurrence when learning of the existence of Mycroft Holmes.)
- Don and doff (put on and take off clothing)
- Betwixt (an archaic synonym for between)
Archaic grammar (especially among nobles) often uses more indirect and/or deferential phrasing. (Basically, hedging your bets when talking to someone.) For example:
- "I fail to see how/why" instead of "I don't see/understand how/why"
- "If you will permit me" instead of "If I'm allowed"
Tip: If you have a friend who's learning French, ask for their help. A lot of archaic English grammar is more obvious when approached from modern French. (eg. "J'ai peur" -> "I have fear" -> "Have no fear" or "J'ai faim" -> "I have hunger" -> "I hunger")
10. Never End A Sentence With a Preposition
As long as you know when to make exceptions, following this dying rule helps to lend an educated air to your character. (eg. "I know the place of which you speak" rather than "I know the place you speak of")
Don't bother with the also-common "don't split the infinitive" rule though. That just cripples your ability to make sentences feel good (eg. denying you the option of "to boldly go" by requiring that "to go" remain an undivided phrase).
...and, besides, it was imposed on English's germanic grammar by scholars with a hard-on for latin. (And, as anyone who's studied French knows, you can't split the infinitive in Latin because it's one word. In French, "to go" is "aller" and "we go" is "nous allons")
11. Lesser-Used Grammatical Moods
As anyone who's done any kind of academic language study (eg. learning French at College/University) knows , languages have various "moods".
In English, we commonly use the indicative mood ("You are going to them"), the conditional mood ("You would go to them if..."), the imperative mood ("Go to them"), and the potential mood ("You may go", "She can go").
First, I'd like to point out two ways of using the moods you already know in a less common fashion:
- You can negate the imperative mood without using "do" ("Fear not")
- You can form a potential mood using "ought" or "must" ("I ought not go", "No, you mustn't!") since they're far less common in modern speech. (Except for "oughta" as in "Why, I oughta...")
Second, I'd like to introduce you to an entire English grammatical mood that has almost died out: The subjunctive.
The subjunctive has several functions (talking about hypotheticals, expressing opinions, and making polite requests) and I know of only two forms which are both distinctive and still in use:
- If I were (as opposed to "If I was", used to talk about hypotheticals)
- I suggest that he beat the drum (as opposed to "he beats the drum, used to express an opinion)
That second one is how "long live the king" classifies as subjunctive, by the way. If it were indicative, it'd be "long lives the king". (A reordering of "the king lives long.")
As Wikipedia points out, there are also two other distinctive constructions which have drifted far enough from common speech to sound flat-out wrong to some modern English-speakers:
- And if he be not able
- I will ensure that he leave immediately ("[ensure] [that he leave]" as opposed to "[ensure that] [he leaves]")
As an author using the subjunctive in the present day, using "If I were" properly is the main thing you want to focus on:
- "If I was..." is the past conditional. You're saying "If [factual statement]..." so you use it in phrases like "If I was rich, where did the money go?"
- "If I were..." is the future subjunctive. You're saying "If [hypothetical statement]..." so you use it in phrases like "If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack".
12. Further Reading
First, using a thesaurus to find synonyms that feel more archaic is often an easy technique. (For example, we don't use "permit" as a verb as much as we used to. "If you'll permit me to..." sounds more archaic than "If you'll allow me to...".)
Second, If you've got the time and want to make your archaic English feel even more accurate, direct experience can be a big help. Given how messy English was in the days before standardized spelling, my advice is to work backwards from modern English.
A good way to get the feel for archaic phrasings is to drop by Project Gutenberg and download some books that are still modern enough to read but have sat in the public domain for long enough for the language to have drifted. I recommend starting with the Sherlock Holmes series (text or audio) and then moving on to the original novel version of Frankenstein (audiobook), since they're both still engaging reads.
(And, for people who have only seen the movies, you're really missing out. The Frankenstein novel is a deep read and invented the core "speculative fiction" branch of science fiction. There's a reason only the novel is subtitled "Or, The Modern Prometheus")
Finally, if you really want to put in an effort and feel like dropping by your local library, ask your local library for the Definitive Edition of Martin Gardner's The Annotated Alice as well as some high school-style annotated copies of Shakespeare. You'll be surprised at some of the ways the language has drifted.
(For example, when Alice says "let's pretend". That used to only mean as in "pretender to the throne"... so a more accurate translation would be closer to "let's lie" than "let's play make-believe")
Moonwalk, moonspeak... And now Luna-speak! =)
Gotta figure out a way to save this. Because, at some point, I may want to write Luna and I would like to be ballpark correct (because there is no way I will be completely correct, which I will write off as Luna trying to adjust to modern speech).
Not to be pedantic about good advice being given for free, but shouldn't the apostrophe be in front of the T since the displaced letter is on that side? 'Tis but a scratch, after all is said and done.
Of course, considering the fact that this speech comes from an era lacking in standardized spelling (among other things), the placement of the apostrophe is purely stylistic. This is the era that provides us modern viewers with such gems as:
I also note a distinct absence of the proper use of wherefore, since it is far from common in modern usage. One would hope that the numerous parodies of people using it incorrectly would be a clue, but I rarely see the chance to use it being taken when it would be advantageous in establishing a character as being old fashioned. Its twin, therefore, is still in use. Just as therefore is equivalent to thus, wherefore is why.
2494407
Thanks.
I can't remember whether "T'is" was a typo or a deliberate decision because starting a word with an apostrophe looked too much like an unbalanced single quote but I'll think on it.
Just an oversight on my part. I've got some additional examples of archaic phrases queued for addition and I'll add that to my TODO list alongside them. (I received a rather large pile of chapter update notices today, so I can't guarantee I'll have time, but I'll try to get them up quickly.)
2494257
You'll probably want to save the version from my personal blog instead (linked at the top of the post).
That's much nicer because I was able to use proper header markup, tables, bulleted lists, and definition lists.
Where is the favorite blogpost button? Ah hell, I'll just follow you.
2494407 2494678
A word of advice: Never let "misplaced some of your notes and want to do it all in one big update" become an excuse to get side-tracked.
I still haven't had time to dig out the last of my planned updates, but I updated the blog post to cover -eth and 'tis as well as adding yon, yonder, nary, singular, and "you have my gratitude" to the vernacular section.
I wish i could favorite blogs.
You know I kinda want to see someone write Luna speaking in Anglo-Saxon or Middle English upon her return. One to impress upon the reader how long 1000 years is and two because it would make Twilight seem like even more of a nerd since she would understand Luna.
I mean Shakespearean English is great and all but even that version of English is only 400 years old
3787311
Tricky to do well, but I definitely agree that it has appeal.
Very nice writeup! I like how you pay close attention to the cases and conjugations; hopefully this'll be helpful for writers to pull off something actually convincing. Irregular verbs are tricky in any language; it makes sense that English simplified them a bunch from their more heavily inflected forms.
One quick note, though: "holier than thou" is actually correct grammar. "Than" introduces an implied subordinate clause, so the full form would be "[He is] holier than thou [art]". Nominative form is correct there, not objective.
5113468
Ahh. Thanks for that. I stand corrected.
This is literally one of the most comprehensive and easiest to understand guide on early modern english anywhere on the internet. This fandom never ceases to amaze me. Kudos for writing this.