Ye Silvre Svann.
Ac hit nys Ealde Englisce ni Middan-Englisce sprǣc. . . .
I am greatly confused. That which is above is not even properly Shakespearean. Yea, I have even seen Chaucer use the grammar less abusively. . . .
'Thine' and 'mine' should never be used adjectivally unless it is followed by a vowel.
ex. 'Thine eyne' 😱
but 'Thy tongue' 😛
ex. 'My time'
but 'Mine hour'
'Thou' is used with a verb followed by -(e)st. 'He'/'she'/'it' is followed by -(e)th.
'Thou' is singular, as compared to the plural 'you'. In later times, 'you' can also be used formally.
ex. 'Your Majesty'
not 'Thy Majesty'
Personally, I find this to be a grammatical abomination for a People who claims to be comprised of Equals. But I know myself to be more than a jot queer for my time.
I know that I am probably trodding upon more than a few toes in saying this: even among Quakers, 'thou' has fallen out of use, in favour of the acutely quirksome 'Universal Thee'.
And thee's a-saying?
I am saying that each and every one of thee 'ast demonstrated a peculiar affinity for laughing at a language that is far more grammatically sensible than thine own. Certainly, it is no match for Old English, proper, in that regard, but there is no use in saying such things among a Folk among whom there are those who claim that 'old english is derived from the bible since it was the only book really published in that time'.
Old English has functioned as a written language since the early seventh century, at least -- well before most of its mainland vernacular counterparts.
The King James Bible -- which was responsible for standardising Modern English (yes, Shakespeare is modern) -- was written almost a millenium later, from 1604 to 1611.
Such wilful displays of ignorance indicate that certain churlish quality that distinguishes our modern era.
But I fear I waste my breath on ye. I shall spare ye further abuse. Fëanor, at least, it seems shall understand my bent.
Wynnlice,
Seija-Ihana
The silver Swan who living hath no Note,
When Death approached unlock'd her silent Throat,
Leaning her Breast against the reedy Shore,
Hath sung her First and Last and sung no more:
'Fare well all Joys! Come Death, now, close mine Eyes!
More Geese than Swans now live, More Fools than Wise.'
Any authors considering the use of older, dialectical forms of English should consider the following:
There is no substitute for the spoken form of any language. We cannot, in any absolute sense, know with absolute certainly what older dialects sounded like. Fortunately, however, scholars have spent years reconstructing the accents of various periods base.d on literary patterns such as rhythmic and rhyming necessities.
The easiest way to become accustomed to an accent is to hear it. For instance, one can find a good many sound clips of Shakespearean English through the fine work of one David Crystal. Try typing 'reconstructed Shakespearean English accent' on Google and you will find ample information on closely related American accents (isolated areas of tidewater Virginia, for instance) and sound bytes of the Shakespeare in his 'original' accent.
Chaucer also has many clips on YouTube which give a very good idea of what English sounded like several hundred years before that.
Vocabulary is, of course, also essential. By the time one reaches the 1700s and 1800s, there are ample dictionaries, many of them exceedingly ironic, which chronicle the slang of the time (search 1811 in particular). I cannot recommend good sources for earlier periods, however. One hint is to buy period literature with extensive footnotes. This is easier done with prominent literature (Chaucer, Shakespeare) than with obscure regions (say, the English spoken in Ireland in the 1620s).
However, remember that, as an author, one must remember not overburden the literature, or one condemns oneself to the same extensive footnotes found in Shakespeare. Most unentertaining, for the casual reader.
My favourite word for subtly bringing a person into an archaic world? MAYHAP. It is used EXACTLY like perhaps or maybe. Mayhap that will be enough?