Slashdot Mirror


Thyne Oldest Known Tech Manual

johnshirley writes "How old is the oldest known technical manual? About 613 years, it seems. Written in 1391 by Geoffrey Chaucer for his ten year old son Lewis (Lowys), the manual explains in great detail but very rough spelling and grammar, the intricate workings of the Astrolabe--the predecessor to the sextant. Read Chaucer's 'A Treatise on the Astrolabe here."

82 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by Earl+The+Squirrel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yet another technical manual I can't make much sense of....

    8-)

    1. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you could understand it, it wouldn't be a technical manual, it would be documentation.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
      Yet another technical manual I can't make much sense of....

      It is unfinished, too. Missing is:

      47. Thy instaling of Linux

      Inserteth into slotte A thyne distributione dyske tytled thus 'Dyske 1', the first dyske of thyne counting. Thou shall notte place inne dyske 2, or dyske 3 excepting that thou hast alreadye placed in dyske 1, or dyske two before dyske 3. Thou shalt notte inserte dyske 8 as itte dys notte exyste...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by PD · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's written in Old Engrish, that's why.

    4. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Funny

      5 is right out

    5. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by fm6 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Most manuals do suck, don't they? I'll try to do better in the future!

      There's a big mistake here that needs correction: Chaucer's spelling and grammar are not "rough". He was, and is, considered one of the greatest writers ever to use the English language. The problem is that English has changed a bit in 600 years. And a writer couldn't look up "correct" spelling: dictionaries hadn't been invented yet.

      In a strict sense, Chaucer's language is not Modern English but a different language called Middle English. They're as different as Classical Latin and Church Latin. (Huh?) OK, they're as different as Cantonese and Mandarin. (WTF are those?) Sigh. It's even more different thatn C++ and Java!

    6. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by robslimo · · Score: 2, Informative

      A little OT here, but how many here were forced to read Chaucer's _Cantebury Tales_ in highschool/grammar school?

      I was, and found nothing warrant any excitement... until, years later, I stumbled upon a copy that had it in both modern English and middle English. Reading it in the original form was fun and interesting! Having the modern version to refer to for odd words helped me enjoy it even more.

    7. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by waterbear · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you could understand it, it wouldn't be a technical manual, it would be documentation.

      After making allowances for the language translation needed, or for those that have read other stuff from Chaucer, it doesn't look too bad to understand at all. :)

      I like it that this has been put on the web and even made it to /. -- even if not clear how this is news exactly! :-P

      (Btw, someone skipped on proofreading the web transcription. A significant line or so went missing even in the very first paragraph ... they left out the bit where Chaucer reminds littel Lowys that he gave him one that he made earlier, and it's suitable for use at their own particular 'horizon' (latitude), Ox[en]ford, where the wording starts in again. So the web version may be a bit harder to understand than it needed to be. :) )

      -wb-

    8. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Funny
      If you could understand it, it wouldn't be a technical manual, it would be documentation.

      or perhaps:

      • astrolabe for dummies
      • teach yourself astrolabe in 21 days
      • quickstart guide to astrolabe

      of course, the real hardcore would just simply run:

      man astrolabe

    9. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by squidfood · · Score: 5, Funny
      astrolabe for dummies

      I hadde the beste teke supporte calle in the last of dayes. A ladde declared hes Astrolabie thus broken, and coudde notte tell of the altitude.

      "Didst thou putten thyn thombe in the ring" I didst ask.

      "I gaze upon no such ring" he replieth.

      "What of this thinge by thy right hond." I enquireith.

      "Ah! Doest thou mean the holder onto which I hath placed my cuppe of beer?"

    10. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by Tarq666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually to correct the issue a little more, the concept of correct spelling is actually a little more recent than even dictionaries. The first books published in English appear in the mid-15th century, from the press of William Caxton. The first being printed in 1475. The first dictionaries of English appear in the mid-18th century. Dr. Johnson's dictionary of 43,500 words appeared in 1755, and the American dictionary by Noah Webster slightly later in 1783. Dispite this, there was still lingering reluctance to adopt a standard spelling of words. Even American President Andrew Jackson (1767 - 1845) is reported as stating that he couldn't respect a man who only knew one way to spell a word.

    11. Re:Even the oldest tech manual isn't readable.. by magarity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they're as different as Cantonese and Mandarin

      While a modern English speaker can figure out Chaucer, Cantonese and Mandarin are almost completely different. Cantonese speakers cannot overhear a Mandarin conversation and figure it out. Chinese writing, on the other hand, is another story. Since it uses symbols, anyone who knows the symbols can read it regardless of which of the hundreds of spoken Chinese dialects they know. In fact, you don't even have to know any spoken Chinese to read it if you know the character set.

  2. Huh by LNO · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somehow I suspect the 1-800 tech support line at the end of the manual isn't ringing any more. Lifetime support my ass...

  3. Oy! by Sean80 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Oh man, instainte haydache. I defy anybody to read that sucker all the way through.

    There will a short exam to test your knowledge at 3.

  4. OCR by iamthemoog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks exactly like my experiences of using OCR software.

    --
    No Norm, those are your safety glasses; I'll wear my own thanks...
  5. Karma Sutra by Mateito · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Karma sutra was written by Vatsyayana sometime between the 1st and 6th century AD. If that's not a technical manual, I don't know what is. Oh wait.. this is Slashdot.

    1. Re:Karma Sutra by rifter · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Karma sutra was written by Vatsyayana sometime between the 1st and 6th century AD. If that's not a technical manual, I don't know what is. Oh wait.. this is Slashdot.

      Kama Sutra.

      Kama == Love (also the god of love, similar to Cupid)

      Karma == Action and of course all the other things it means to us now.

      It is indeed a technical manual on the art of love. I'm not sure it was the oldest of its type. However, this astrolabe manual describes the use of a technological device. I think this more closely relates to the connotation of a computer manual or man page than any "pillow book," but that is a matter of opinion.

    2. Re:Karma Sutra by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny
      The Kama Sutra Technical Manual.

      Chapter 1: Insert tab A into slot B.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Karma Sutra by H8X55 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The text is the oldest known "technical manual" in the English language.

      From the bottom of the FA.

  6. Does it predate: by Pii · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    For those that would die defending it, Freedom
    has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
  7. Rough spelling and grammar? by branewashd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unless I'm mistaken, the spelling and grammar is correct. The chronology here places this writing in Late Middle English, which had very different spelling and grammar rules than modern English.

    --
    Life isn't a support-system for art. It's the other way around. - Stephen King
  8. hehe by ArmenTanzarian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bye reeding thus lycense agerment, thee promeses...

    1. Re:hehe by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shoulde ye, upon iynspection of thyne Astrelabie, obsyrve a displaye of vivyde blu that doth syrmounte all othre tynt, eyther thyne Astrelabie ist fully angled teuwards the Heavyns, or thyne Astrelabie hast crayshd moste uttyrly.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  9. Spalling ande suche by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Funny
    Lyte Lowys my sone, I aperceyve wel by certeyne evydences thyn abilite to lerne sciences touching nombres and proporciouns; and as wel considre I thy besy praier in special to lerne the tretys of the Astrelabie...

    Shame he's dead. He'd make a good Slashdot editor.

    (yes, yes, I know, Olde Englishe ande alle thate...)

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  10. Pervert! by JudgeDredd · · Score: 5, Funny

    the intricate workings of the Astrolube--the predecessor to the sextant

    He wrote a sex manual for his 10 year old kid?
    This guy is a pervert!

  11. Yeah, that made sense by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That was -- ahem -- an interesting read. I liked the part where I had absolutely no idea what he was saying.

    Nevertheless, I'm always impressed by how flowery the language was in the old days, considering how time-consuming it was to actually pen something.

    In our day and age, we have the ability to dash things off at fifty to a hundred words a minute (depending on typing ability), and we make nearly everything we compose direct to the point of sterility.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:Yeah, that made sense by prockcore · · Score: 2, Funny

      In our day and age, we have the ability to dash things off at fifty to a hundred words a minute (depending on typing ability), and we make nearly everything we compose direct to the point of sterility.

      No we don't.

    2. Re:Yeah, that made sense by Ubergrendle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd argue (as have others) that English has become the modern day Latin. Perpetuated by Empire (first British, then American), it has become the common language of commerce and science. English has the added advantage of a very clear gramatical structure (e.g. no masculine/feminine nouns) and is very well suited to the adoption of words from other languages.

      It is a difficult language to learn at first, given the numerous exceptions in its vocabulary (e.g. 'knife', 'i after e except after c, except when...', 'a,e,i,o,u, and sometimes y').

      English today is not the language of Shakespeare or Donne or Tennyson, or even T.S.Elliot. It reflects our society, and the world we live in, which is very driven by the forces of science, progressive-ism, and capitalism. Accordingly, our use of English has become more and more direct, as we value accuracy and elegance more than anything else.

      It can still be beautiful. Take for example this poem by Leonard Cohen:

      With Annie gone,
      whose eyes to compare
      With the morning sun?
      Not that I did compare,
      But I do compare
      Now that she's gone.

      Simple, direct, elegant...easibly read and understood. But very modern in its approach. I love it.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
  12. Sun Tzu's Art of War by southpolesammy · · Score: 3, Informative

    More or less a manual on how to technically run an army. C. 500BC

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    1. Re:Sun Tzu's Art of War by fruey · · Score: 2, Informative
      From the article: The text is the oldest known "technical manual" in the English language, and it was compiled from different foreign sources."

      Old English, for sure, but English. It's "Chaucer" too, not Chauncer, and I presume this is the same guy who wrote the Canterbury Tales including Thomas farts thunderously in the friar's hand

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
  13. spelling? by rifter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Written in 1391 by Geoffrey Chauncer for his ten year old son Lewis (Lowys), the manual explains in great detail but very rough spelling and grammar,

    Actually, the spelling in the manual is correct for the period, unlike slashdot articles, where one cannot even expect proper nouns like Chaucer to be spelt correctly. :P

    1. Re:spelling? by Haeleth · · Score: 2

      Old English had stopped being spoken about 200 years before Chaucer.

      Make that 300 years. Old English is generally defined as 600-1100 AD. Chaucer's writings are circa 1380-1400.

      You're right about the "harder to read", but only to a certain extent. Northern texts of the same era as Chaucer, such as the works of the Pearl poet (no, not that Perl!), are also pretty hard to read.

      Chaucer's English is fairly familiar to us because it's the London dialect that went on to form the basis of modern English. It also helps that most editions of Chaucer modernise his spelling to a considerable extent...

  14. Inspiration for spammers... by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 5, Funny

    Although the spelling and grammar are rather old fashioned, no doubt spammers will take inspiration from the text for the latest attempts to get around filters.

    I can see it coming to an inbox near you soon:

    "Is thyne mans penys lyttel? Than thou hast by myne oyntments"

    John.

  15. KAMA Sutra by Speare · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Karma sutra was written by Vatsyayana sometime between the 1st and 6th century AD. If that's not a technical manual, I don't know what is. Oh wait.. this is Slashdot.

    That's Kama Sutra, you dork. You've misunderstood the meaning of the word 'karma'. Oh wait... this is Slashdot.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:KAMA Sutra by azaris · · Score: 4, Funny
      The Karma sutra was written by Vatsyayana sometime between the 1st and 6th century AD. If that's not a technical manual, I don't know what is. Oh wait.. this is Slashdot.

      That's Kama Sutra, you dork. You've misunderstood the meaning of the word 'karma'. Oh wait... this is Slashdot.

      I suppose Karma Sutra is the technical manual for karma-whoring on Slashdot.

  16. I find the manual to be confusing... by jared_hanson · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would have preferred a simple overview of how to operate the astrolabe. Unfortunately Chaucer had to take the tack of having each piece tell a tale about how it fits into the whole. That wouldn't be so bad, but sometimes the tales are analogies that are somewhat hard to relate to the instrument at hand.

    --
    -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
  17. Even in the 14th Century.... by LittleGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Support could be summed up by a four-letter acronym:

    RYFP - Reade Ye Focking Parchment!

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    1. Re:Even in the 14th Century.... by Antibozo · · Score: 5, Informative

      That should be "RTFP". The letter you've written as "Y" is a thorn (þ or &254; in iso-8859-1) and stands for "th". That letter is not present in Modern English, so it should be written out as "th". Unfortunately, slashdot won't pass through these character entities for rendering, so you'll have to imagine what it looks like, but its vague similarity to "Y", especially in older writing, along with the custom of substituting "Y" for thorn in early press printing (no thorns in the type collection), has perpetuated this confusion. The word you intended to use, "þe", is "the", and is pronounced that way. "Ye" is the plural of "you", not a definite article.

  18. Re:Bad Translation? by nocomment · · Score: 4, Funny

    all your constants are belong to us

    --
    /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
    /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
  19. Re:Stupid by DeepStream · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, it's Middle English. Old English is the language spoken prior to the Norman conquest, and thus prior to incorporation of many French words to the language. Middle English occupies an interesting position in the evolution of the language, before the Germanic and French rooted words were merged into a consistent pronunciation scheme (refered to as The Great Vowel Shift).

  20. I don't understand it. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Funny
    Probably because it doesn't have the little cartoon of the Astrolab crying when it gets too hot, too cold, wet, or when you put the tape in backwards.

    I attempted to find examples, but all I found was google spam. Remember when Google was useful?

  21. Re:Stupid by madcow_ucsb · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's not Old English. This:

    HWAET, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum,
    eodcyninga rym gefrunon,
    hu da aeelingas ellen fremedon!
    oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum,
    monegum maegum meodosetla ofteah,
    egsode eorlas, syddanaerest weard
    feasceaft funden; he aes frofre gebad,
    weox under wolcnum weordmyndum ah,
    od aet him aeghwylc ymbsittendra
    ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
    gomban gyldan; aet waes god cyning!
    Daem eafera waes aefter cenned
    geong in geardum, one God sende
    folce to frofre; fyrendearfe ongeat,
    e hie aer drugon aldorlease
    lange hwile; him aes Liffrea,
    wuldres Wealdend woroldare forgeaf,
    Beowulf waes breme --- blaed wide sprang---
    Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
    Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean,
    fromum feohgiftumon faeder bearme,

    (From Beowulf...) is Old English. You might consider going back to school....

  22. Okay, okay, get me an Asprin now please. by QuiK_ChaoS · · Score: 2, Funny

    And I thought 12 hours of programming was the only thing that could turn your eyes to goo.

    Might as well make the font orange and the background neon yellow and really mess people up.

  23. Re:I can't figure out... by scheme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spellings weren't really standardized until fairly recently (less than 150 years ago). Latin and Greek texts may have more standardized spellings but that is due to linguistic constraints. Besides original latin texts didn't have any spaces between words and that things like a v standing in for both a u and v.

    --
    "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
  24. Chauncer?! by wadam · · Score: 5, Informative

    Chauncer? CHAUNCER?! Does the author of this story mean Geoffrey Chaucer? I don't know a Geoffrey Chauncer, but in the same period, Chaucer did write a treatise on the Astrolabe for his son.

    And beyond the poor editing, how is this news? The treatise is included in all of the most widely used compilations of his complete works. See The Riverside Chaucer if you don't want to take my word for it.

    Finally, not to be redundant, but while this is arguably the oldest tech manual in english, it is certainly not the oldest technical manual period. For something older, just for example, see Vitruvius' book on architecture. There's an older tech manual for you.

    Gosh. You people really need a humanities / social sciences editor here.

    1. Re:Chauncer?! by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Gosh. You people really need a humanities / social sciences editor here.

      Why? You're doing it for free! ;-)

    2. Re:Chauncer?! by pz · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... see Vitruvius' book on architecture. There's an older tech manual for you.

      Or any of a handful of ancient Greek authors; they'd have predated Chaucer by, oh, nearly two millenia.

      More specifically (clickety-click, all-praise-unto-Google) how about the Antikythra instrument, a well-known Ancient Greek calculating engine, complete with inscribed instructions? Estimated to be made in 80 BC or so, 1400 years or so before Caucer. A friggen' computer with a manual fer chrissakes.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  25. Re:It's not translated by pinkboi · · Score: 2, Informative

    middle english. it wouldn't even make sense if it was old english. wes thu hal, folde. fira modor, beo thu blowende.. etc, etc, etc

    --
    "The absurd is clear reasoning recognizing its limits"
    -Albert Camus
  26. Historical Geek by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    He must be a true geek: He would rather write an intricate manual rather than just show his son face-to-face how to use the damned thing. I can relate :-)

  27. the fine print by andih8u · · Score: 2, Funny

    Somewhere at the bottom it says something about "firste posthethe" and an arcane mention of something called "yegoate.intercour.se" Predating slashdot standards yet again, Chauncer gave this to his son then 4 hours later gave it to him again.

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
  28. It's not translated by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Informative

    The text is in Old English and is presented without any transalation.

    Nope, Chaucer isn't Old English (a language more closely related to Fresian), its actually Middle English. Once you get used to it, it isn't too difficult to understand. If you want to see some Old English, have a look at an untranslated version of Beowulf (the Epic, not the cluster).

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  29. Re:I can't figure out... by mishac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was no standardized spelling in Middle English. Different spellings of the same word in the same text are actually very common in writings of this era. Part of it has to do with spacing - a word would be spelled differently so that it would fit into a line better. Pronunciation and vocabulary were not fully standardized in this era either, causing a lot of problems.

  30. Re:I can't figure out... by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, but you'd expect that whatever Chaucer made up for "treatise", be it "tretys" or "trytis", he'd use the same thing throughout the text.

  31. time was less scarce ?? by giampy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think in those times the relationship
    with time was much different. Much less hectic.

    The rhythms of work and life were much more
    subjected to things like daylight, seasons and
    stuff like that.

    --
    We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
  32. Spelling and Grammar by FleshMuppet · · Score: 3, Interesting
    great detail but very rough spelling and grammar

    It's not so much that it contains 'rough spelling and grammar' as it was 'written in Middle English'. Middle English is that period in the English language from after Romanticisation (following the Norman invasion in 1066) to roughly a century before Shakespeare.

    It's also worth mentioning at this point that the concepts of correct spelling and correct grammar are essentially 20th century concepts within the English language. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, the first in the language, was not published until 1755. Webster's Dictionary, the first such book in America, did not appear until 1828. Prior to the advent of Dictionaries, spellings were not considered absolute. In Shakespeare's time, it was not uncommon to spell your name differently on different occasions. Not only are spelling and grammar newcomers to our language, the concept of 'correct grammar' is a bit of a dated one. Linguists have come to realize that usage patterns vary from dialect to dialect and context to context. How we speak whe we are discussing Psychology tends to be very different from say, discussing Philosophy. Instead of saying 'incorrect grammar', it is better to speak of 'poor style'.

  33. It's hard to read... by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...because the English language was still in beta back then.

    it wasn't all refined and perfect and unambiguous like it is now. ;-)

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  34. I don't see the difference? by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...the manual explains in great detail but very rough spelling and grammar...

    And how this is different from any of the recent manuals I've read, again?

    At least with Chaucer's manual, eventually, you WOULD understand what the fsck you were doing, which is more than can be said for some tech writings.

    --
    -Styopa
  35. Re:I can't figure out... by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny
    That's just how it was then: spell however you want, so long as you're understood and you didn't look like an idiot.

    Ah yes...the time when /. editors reigned supreme.

  36. Slashdot, 1392 by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny


    Father! (Score:IV, Runelike)

    by Lowysbot (0000087)
    on Wednesday January 28, 1392

    Overthwart this forseide longe lyne ther crossith him another lyne of the same lengthe from eest to west? WTF?

    Siggurus infantium!

    re: Father! (Score:II, Plagued)

    by ACerteyneMortale (0000004)
    on Wednesday January 28, 1392

    RTAM!
    (Rede thy accursd manuale!

    Mie tayle is too loge for God's sig.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  37. Old? That's not even pre-Christian! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Get REAL! There are some excellent pre-Christian writings that qualify as "technical manuals". Take Julius Caesar's treatise on building bridges: he describes it well enough that you could read his text and build one. Going back even further: Egyptian wine-making recipes from 4000 years ago qualify.

  38. Re:I can't figure out... by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bear in mind that when you are reading Greek and Latin you are reading it in a Greek/Latin alphabet.

    Bear in mind that when you are reading English you are reading it in a Greek/Latin alphabet.

    Since you grew up thinking of the way you read and write as "correct" it doesn't really strike your attention that the fit is rather poor and that there is no proper English alphabet. This makes a difference.

    Also bear in mind that the Greek and Latin texts you read have the benefit of fairly stable language development behind them, spanning millenia, whereas English had only existed for a couple of centuries or so by force fitting language, at the point of a sword, into another. This not only screws up the rules but screws up how one thinks about whether their are rules or not.

    When this piece was written the Language was still being made up. In fact, Mr. Chaucer helped make it up. What you see is not simply bad and inconsistent spelling but technical experimentation.

    Hacking.

    KFG

  39. Isn't the Bible and Instruction manual? by xagon7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Take a look through Liviticus....

  40. To see some Astrolabe examples... by MarkG123 · · Score: 4, Informative
  41. Astrolabe User Guide by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 4, Funny

    For anyone too lazy to read, here's how it begins:

    "Congratulations on choosing Astrolabe(TM), the most advanced device of its kind in the worlde..... blah blah blah.

    Astrolabe Inc. 1391"

  42. Re:I can't figure out... by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As others have pointed out, there was no standardisation of English spelling in the fourteenth century. On top of that, I don't think you realise that these books were copied out by hand. On very expensive parchment. By people who didn't have any concept of "correct" spelling anyway.

    On your computer, if you make a typo you can delete it and try again, and when you've finished writing it you can run a spellcheck. Even if you're writing a sci-fi novel with We'ird'naMes in it, you can do a search/replace to make sure you've got those consistent.

    On parchment, if you spell something wrong, you leave it spelt wrong. If you accidentally write the wrong word, chances are you leave that, too. You literally cannot afford to make a "perfect" copy.

    Plus, in this case, you're a hack writing something for his nephew in his spare time. You aren't going to waste time proofreading if that's not a part of your culture.

  43. Oriental history, anyone? by ferralis · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not certain, but I have a nagging suspicion that the oldest known tech manual actually belongs to another instrument entirely, in the origins of the modern computer. Counting boards, or abacuses (abaci?) have been used for a loooong time.

    A quicky google on the history of the abacus yielded the following spiffy (or not) abacus history information, including a mention of the "ancient Chinese abacus imagined from a description given in a book titled Mathematical Treatises by Ancients written by Hsu Yo towards the end of the Later Han Dynasty, about 1700 years ago"

    On the plus side (couldn't resist) I'm pretty sure that Chaucer would have written the first English (Englyshe?) tech manual, since he was, after all, a bit of a pioneer in English literature of all kinds...

    --
    Any generalization is a stupid one.
  44. A much older Tech Manual by Systems+Curmudgeon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out the first five books of the Old testament (especially Exodus) for detailed descriptions of how to construct a shrine (the Mikdash) from materials that fit together beautifully and are easily assembled and disasembled.

  45. Re:I can't figure out... by k98sven · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, but you'd expect that whatever Chaucer made up for "treatise", be it "tretys" or "trytis", he'd use the same thing throughout the text.

    Actually, this was pretty typical of medieval spelling.. Things weren't spelled consistently, and the same author would often vary his spelling to not have to repeat himself.

    Remember, this was way before dictionaries, and the idea that there would be one 'correct' spelling, making all others 'wrong' hadn't yet quite entered.

    It was later, during the reformation, the Bible was translated, and often ended up serving as the 'offical' way of writing and spelling.

    As far as I know, anyway.. IANAEM (An English Major)

  46. Rough spelling? by vorwerk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's middle English, not "rough spelling". Chaucer was one of the forefathers of the English language, and considered by many scholars to be one of the first major poets to write not in French or Latin (as was popular in the day), but in the language of the common people -- English.

    If it weren't for Chaucer, many argue that the English language we know today never would have received the same amount of attention as it (eventually) did among the noble English class.

  47. Re:It's not translated by richmaine · · Score: 2, Informative

    The concept of "bad speller" wasn't yet relevant. Standardized spelling didn't come until later.

  48. Surely this is older, by a smidgen... by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Funny

    'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'

  49. preservation by Lurking+Grue · · Score: 3, Funny

    The original manuscript was found in perfect condition, due to the fact that his son never broke the shrinkwrap on the manual.

  50. Much older manuals survive by piyamaradus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have here on my desk at work (don't ask why) texts of mostly Roman-period artillery manuals (some in Greek, some in Latin), mostly cribbed from earlier, now-lost materials dating back to the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. Much older than the one referenced, and just as 'technical', to the point where they've been used to reconstruct some of the artillery engines described (stone and bolt throwers powered by twisted ropes and/or metal springs).

    No linux mentioned anywhere, I'm afraid.

  51. Re:Stupid by madcow_ucsb · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, according to our good friends at dictionary.com:

    Old English
    n.
    The English language from the middle of the 5th to the beginning of the 12th century. Also called Anglo-Saxon.

    From OED: According to the nomenclature now generally adopted in this country, the Old English period ends about 1100-1150...

    So the Anglo-Saxon language *is* Old English. And since Chaucer is late 14th century, I think he qualifies as Middle English. Thanks for playing though...

  52. Thyne Oldest Perl Manual ! by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the text: "And God woot that in alle these langages and in many moo han these conclusions ben suffisantly lerned and taught, and yit by diverse reules; right as diverse pathes leden diverse folk the righte way to Rome."

    Even in the 14th century, There Was More Than One Way To Do It !

    Thomas Miconi

  53. Re:It's not translated by Noren · · Score: 3, Informative
    Centuries later, Shakespeare/ Shake-speare/ Shakespere/ Shakespear/ Shakspeare/ Shackspeare would continue this grand tradition of spelling things erratically, including his own name.

    There existed no English dictionary at the time, and most formal documents (and nearly all scholarly texts) were written in Latin or Greek. In the second paragraph Chaucer states that the reason he was writing in English was that his young son for whom he's allegedly writing this didn't know Latin yet. Paragraphs two and three are basically a long justification (excuse?) for writing this whole thing in English, because literate people of the time were all expected to know Latin and Greek. One of the reasons many of Chaucer's works survived and are read to this day (e.g. Canterbury Tales) is that he was willing to write in English- unusual for the time.

  54. Can you read it? by ocie · · Score: 3, Funny

    I tried just it through babelish, but that just made things worse.

    --
    JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
  55. Has nobody read to the end? by Artifex · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Geoffrey Chaucer lived appr. 1340-1400. "A Treatise on the Astrolabe" was once believed to have been written for a son of Chaucer's. "Lyte Lowys" (Little Lewis) is, however, presumably the son of a friend, Lewis Clifford. The boy probably died in 1391, which might explain why this work is unfinished. The text is the oldest known "technical manual" in the English language, and it was compiled from different foreign sources. The beginning is, however, Chaucer's very own. This version is the F. N. Robinson edition.


    It appears that he wrote it for a friend's kid, who may have died before it was completed. Look beyond what Chaucer wrote, and imagine what might have happened. Possibly, the kid kept asking "Uncle Geoffrey" whenever he visited how his cool astrolabe thing worked, and Chaucer started writing this for him... and then he gets the news that little Lewis is dead.

    That's pretty sad, not because he spent time writing this, but because he liked the kid enough to make the attempt, then had to deal with his death. This is more than a scientific document, it's a hint as to what life was like back then.
    --
    Get off my launchpad!
  56. Re:I can't figure out... by kfg · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'd have to write at least several pages to answer these issues I'm afraid, thus what follows is inherently lacking.

    It is impossible to deal with Roman culture and not take into account Greek culture. The Latin alphabet is a concatenation of the Eutruscan and the Greek. However, some of the Eutruscan letters have have corespondence with the Greek.

    Greek was developed from Phonecian starting sometime about 1000 BC. Phoenecian writing itself was in a prototypical form at the time (they hadn't even settled on which direction to write it yet, for instance) and the Greeks were psychologically free to adapt it as they pleased.

    However, a point of interest, the Greek vowels corespond to the Semetic, the Latin vowels follow the Greek and the English follows the Latin.

    But English has 20 vowels. Not five.

    Spanish is a lovely language. Very Latinate, and it's actually difficult to misspell words in Spanish. The sounds simply corespond to the letters. You can make simple mistakes and typos easily enough but you really have to work at it to just plain get it wrong. The same is true of Latin and Greek. There's really no equivilant of spelling "fish" as "ghoti" in Spanish. In those instances where the pronuciation of a letter differs somewhat in a word from the standard alphabetic representation it uses an accent mark to note the correct pronuciation.

    English, with its 20 vowel sounds as opposed to the 5 of Hebrew, has completely dropped the use of accent marks, and thus the use of vowels in the written word is often completely arbitrary, picking from perhaps as many as three "close fits." If one has not learned the "correct" vowel to use by rote and falls back on phonetics one is just as likely to pick any one of those three vowel letters as any of the others.

    Greek and Latin evolved in a small world. Basically the Mediteranian basin. There was a good deal of trade and contact, but only with a limited number of fairly close neighbors. This resulted in well developed and very closely related languages that could easily share alphabets without any undue twisting of things.

    In the case of the German language Luther had the advantage, although there were many distinct dialects of German, in that German was at least German.

    English is a language of the globe. It always has been. It's completely polyglot. It's sounds and grammer are hammered together of bits and pieces from simply everywhere. It's Norse, German, French, Latin, Angle, etc. Its evolution follows the evolution of world voyaging and conquest. This makes it a wonderful language for prose.

    It makes it unbearable (unbaribal/unbareubil) to spell with the Latin alphabet.

    There have been a few phonetic alphabets proposed that would make the written English language nearly as phonetic as the Spanish. They've existed for over 100 years. Nobody cares.

    Culture is very powerful.

    And so we write our words as if they were Hebrew.

    It's also interesting to note that modern English evolved in close relationship with the printing press and the fact that much of our spelling is a matter of convienience to the printer and has nothing to do with linguistics at all is not to be discounted.

    Along that note I'll also point out that the Greek and Latin texts that have come down to us are not casual writing. Such as this spelling error laden post is. They are formal writings of professionals, and have had the benefit of careful proof reading and editing. Sometimes over the course of centuries before they became the version we know. Of course there are relatively few errors.

    English writing in the time of Chaucer was a casual language, even though only a certain class of the educated would be expeted to read and write in it.

    If one wished to write formally and "correctly" one wrote in Latin.

    KFG

  57. More writings by Chauncer (you've seen them too!) by weeboo0104 · · Score: 2, Funny

    That bastard has been sending me spam! Take a look at this subject line!

    "Fynde VYAGRA Cheep Ohnline and increese thine organ by moo proporciouns"

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  58. The Standardization of English by westendgirl · · Score: 3, Informative
    You're correct. The spelling and gramar reflect that used during Chaucer's time. Later, around 1500, the Great Vowel Shift changed the way words were written and pronounced. But, even allowing for the Great Vowel Shift, it's not so much a question of whether the spelling and grammar are correct. The first English dictionary was published by Samuel Johnson in 1755. Until then, writers lacked a standard reference for spelling and grammar. Even Johnson simply picked spellings from the books he respected the most.

    Arguably, some writers would have learned to spell in school (if they were so lucky to attend). But what constituted "Standard English" would vary from town to town. Many people never travelled to other towns, so much of English spelling developed in pockets.

    Until the rise of mercantilism in the 1500s and 1700s, variations in spelling and grammar were of minor importance. In time, the move from guilds to mercantalism required precision in business dealings, and the language had to be standardized. For example, English speakers dropped "they" as a singular, finding agreement in number more important than gender neutrality.

    Much of "standard English" grammar is based on Latin rules of grammar. The reason we avoid splitting infinitives is that you can't split a Latin infinitive -- it's one word!

    Well, that about sums up my English degree. :) I knew I'd use it again one day.

    --

    -- SYS 64738 --

  59. Re:It's not translated by MuParadigm · · Score: 2, Informative


    No, that's Middle English, Late Middle English in fact. Ye True Olde English is not at all understandable today. It's more like a variant of German, Frisian is probably the closest modern analogue, but even that is heavily influenced by Modern German.

    Here's an example of *OLD* English: ... He aetwige gecrang
    ealdres scyldig; ond nu other cwom
    mihtig man scatha, wold hyre maeg wrecan

    etc.