what does this sentence mean in old english i mean hundreds of years ago's english?
362445
That is a garbled version of the opening sentence of ‘Beowulf’.\n\nBeowulf begins:\nhwæt we gar-dena in geardagum, \nþeodcyninga þrym gefrunon, \nhu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. \noft scyld scefing sceaþena þreatum, \nmonegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah, \negsode eorlas, syððan ærest wearð\nfeasceaft funden; he þæs frofre gebad, \nweox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah, \noðþæt him æghwylc þær ymbsittendra \nofer hronrade hyran scolde, \ngomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning!\n\nThe translation is:\nLo, praise of the prowess of people-kings \nof spear-armed Danes, in days long sped, \nwe have heard, and what honour the athelings won! \nOft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes, \nfrom many a tribe, the mead-bench tore, \nawing the earls. Since erst he lay, \nfriendless, a foundling, fate repaid him: \nfor he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve, \ntill before him the folk, both far and near, \nwho house by the whale-path, heard his mandate, \ngave him gifts: a good king he!
1186088
I suspect it's supposed to be something like "Quod quondam iterum ego vado, in profundis vorago existimo iaci" which means something like "Whichever path I travel (in the past, in the future, sometimes), I judge myself to be thrown into a profound pit."\n\nIt didn't make much sense to me in the first version…I suspect it's a bad computer translation.
191319
My grammar died years ago.
790416
An archaic term word be a term from an earlier time that is no longer used in modern usage-except in specialized uses. \nWhen I think of archaic terms, I think of terms that in some way show their age..in some way they can be linked to an earlier part of history or the English language.\nA lot of archaic terms that come to my mind are Shakesperan or from the King James version of the Bible.\nTerms like:\n~ "art" or "thou" as in "Thou art" which means "you are".\n~"Dost" or "doth" which are both forms of the verb "do". "Dost thou have a comb?" which would be "Do you have a comb?"\nOr sometimes archaic terms aren't even that old.\nTerms like "Golly" or "Jeepers" or "Swell", words that were only used a few generations ago, have become dated and recall and earlier period of English. \nIt should be noted that some groups still use terms that the general population would consider archaic, like the Amish people *some* of who still use "thee(s)" and "thou(s).
650451
It is "used to". If you say "I use to go for long walks", that would imply that you meant something like "I use my legs to go for long walks"
285274
Well, old people means old times, and now, we are young and it means young times.\n\nOld people have had a different idea of how the world and culture works, because in their times, they were very diferent, we all know how the world has changed in terms of ideas and culture, all the good life we have now. So, old people might be angry that the world is changing so bad, when they talk to people that are enjoying the good life, just get angry. I guess
466261
I looked up my dad's old English-Indonesian dictionary. It came up with "sebaliknya". Not sure if it fits the sentence context you want.
978581
I know how irritating this seems. To me too. The only reason that seems feasible is that the language and how it's used are constantly changing.  The way we speak English now would be nearly unrecognizable to people living 400 years ago.  Phrases that were all the rage in my teens are now hopelessly out of date and the pronunciation of some common words has changed in the last 10 years. As grating as it sounds, "bored of" is probably a part of the river of language changing its course as it often does.  If you want some entertaining information on words and how they've changed try www.word-detective.com. It really broadened my view of language and made it easier to live with the occasional ear twisters like "bored of".
171941
ole=old\nart=is\nbloody=sux\ngay=high-spirited\netc.\njust translate the meanings peice by peice
537716
A long long time ago.
371528
Doth thou mean-eth liketh thateth oldeth fashionedeth wayeth of talkingeth?...\n \n\n\n...yep.
824390
Can't be done.  You'd have to say what origins you are including, not just which ones you are excluding.  There's really no such thing as English, historically speaking.  That's a comparatively recent development.  All the way back to way before Chaucer, which is used as an exercise in reading really old English, there was Latin mixed in.  There were words from Celtic, Angles, Saxons, and plenty of others.  You're about a thousand years too late to sort them out now.
313279
OY.  Um, the English Renaissance (circa late 1400's) or the beginning of the Italian Renaissance (circa 1350).\n\nOkay, Old English 450-1066.  450 marks the Invasion of the Romans.  1080, the Battle of Hastings and thus the French influence.  \n\nMiddle English 1066-1449 --- French influence via the Normans.  (by the way, Chaucer is the main man when it comes to Middle English --- you can see it in the way he uses French in his works --- and while it may be possible, I highly doubt anyone has done a translation of CT into Old English --- esp considering the French words had no way of existing pre-French invasion.)\n\nModern English 1450-2006  --- Discovery of the New World, and more importantly, the printing press which stabilized literature.\n\nSo, the English spoken during the Renaissance is the same as now.  HOWEVER, you're sitting there thinking, like hell it is, and you'd be right.  It has evolved, changed and so forth.  \n\nShakespeare's English is what they spoke during the Renaissance.  He will be your best bet; however, keep in mind, the rhythm he writes in is not always what was spoken.  The iambic pentameter was a fancy way to write, and a stylized way to speak, very difficult to achieve, naturally.  \n\nThat being the case, you're going to find a lot of poetry from the Renaissance and not a lot of prose.  \n\nIn college consider taking Old English and Middle English courses to see how the English language developed. The direct answer is that we speak very similarly to the way they spoke then.  The changes aren't as drastic as in the first two periods (have you ever read Beowulf in Old English---it's a bear and not many people can do it).\n\nSo, until you get into some upper division English courses (or even MA and PhD work) start by picking up a Norton Anthology of English.  You can find them hella cheap on the internet.  It doesn't have to be the latest edition.  The works don't change, just the way they're ordered in the text and some commentary about the work---maybe a shred of new info.  I bought my fifth edition recently for about 5 bucks; however, the 8th is currently selling (the complete set) for about $130.  \n\nKey notes to help you further.  The beginning of Modern English used thou, thee, and thy much more.  That is like tu versus usted i espanol.  Tu is informal whereas usted is formal.  Take the popular "Our Father" for example.  Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.  Thy kingdom come, thy will be done...\n\nThy is a show of closeness and familiarity.  If the scholars/monks translated it as [your] it would show a rigid formality uncommon in a father/child setting.  \n\nIf I can be of any further assistance, let me know.
807668
Centuries ago English, like many modern European languages, had grammatical gender.  Here's a sample sentence in Old English that illustrates this:  "Se deaþ is þisses lifes ende, ac seo sawol is undeadlic."  ("Death is the end of life, but the soul is eternal.")   In the example, "deaþ" is a masculine noun, and "sawol" is a feminine noun.\n\nOver the centuries, English has lost its grammatical gender, but I wonder if our custom of referring to ships etc. as "she" is a leftover from the time when it had it.
684790
I have never heard this phrase in my seven years. What is the context?
1106270
Most of them were the original Anglo-Saxon words for the concepts that they describe. 'Anglo-Saxon' is another word for 'Old English'. Most languages similar to English (Dutch, German, Scandinavian languages) have similar words - in some cases taboo, in some cases freely accepted. Most Anglo-Saxon documents freely use these words with no sense that they are in any way 'inappropriate'.\n\nMostly, the sense of 'four-letter words' as curse words developed after 1066, when England was conquered by the Normans. The upper classes would speak French and the peasants would speak English. Thus, French came to be seen as 'refined' and English as 'common'. So a lot of true Anglo-Saxon words developed a sense of being 'unclean'.\n\nIt's interesting to remember, the next time you get angry at someone for using 'bad language', that your comments actually are the result of hundreds of years of linguistic discrimination!
504211
Your best bet is to check at a university that has a department of Ancient Languages, really. Still, I list a dictionary in the sources; if there is a title that you can translate, you may be able to find an English version somewhere. Or, you can contact the owner and ask...