[signal11]

This is a great example of moving the goalposts re the original (false) point that a previous comment made about French having a longer literary history than English.

If you’ve got a specific agenda, say x > y, you can be very selective about success criteria to suit yourself.

In this particular case of English and French, the reality is that few modern French speakers can read the Song of Roland. “Resembles x much more” is pretty irrelevant because it cherry-picks similarities while glossing over differences. One can equally say Old English’s “and forgyf us ure gyltas” is pretty readable, but really you’re scraping the bottom of the argument barrel.

Also glossing over an older literary tradition because the language mutated in response to a new political reality (conquest) is ... curious.

[pcrh]

These are the first 5 lines of Beowulf:

Hwæt! Wé Gárdena in géardagum

þéodcyninga þrym gefrúnon

hú ðá æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Oft Scyld Scéfing sceaþena þréatum

monegum maégþum meodosetla oftéah

It's a long stretch to say it's the same language as modern English, so shouldn't be counted as "literature in the English language".

It could however count as literature written by the English people.

For a comparison, these are the first 5 lines of Chanson de Roland

CARLES li reis, nostre emperere magnes,

Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne:

Tresqu’en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.

N’i ad castel ki devant lui remaigne;

Mur ne citet n’i est remés a fraindre,

Relative to modern French and English, the French of Chanson de Roland is comparable to the English of Chaucer.

[reverius42]

I don't think it's moving the goalposts to say that something understandable by modern French speakers has an older literary tradition than something understandable by modern English speakers. You can call what we speak today "English" but it barely resembles the language used in Beowulf.

[signal11]

You’re entitled to your opinion. All I’ll say is that in the context of the bald fact (French has an older literary tradition than English) presented by a previous commenter, “understandable by modern speakers” is moving the goalposts. In my opinion of course.

Also

> something understandable by modern French speakers

The Song of Roland, used as an example in a previous comment, doesn’t qualify, and actually is yet another reason why this line of argument is pretty sad.