I am trying to hone an archaic writing style. Does what I have written here have itself entrenched in some bygone era of time or other and in which era would this be? Please do refrain from posting ill-witted obscenities abounded with shrill and strident witticisms, as instead you should provide me with some trenchant criticism that will further have my knowledge of what is required of my writing understood by my rather constrained self. Thanks.

I had myself without much gold, which then had me, with much disappointment had, have known to me the ways by which more gold can be had by this here pocket of mine, which does begin to show itself as having fewer coins than the pocket of a peasant would have were he have himself in great luck found. Though this be a common plight had by many a man of our village, do bestow unto me your wisdom; that I may have, with great pleasure to all exemplified, the ways of those with gold coin plentiful known to me. There are arcane spoils to be had by my peasant hand, and a heavy pocket of mine is to certainly have me dabble in their brilliance, as the dabbling of my brother in such spoils of his own does have him an afire place and purpose in our village known to those coin copious coterie. It has been by my brother that such a coin is worshiped by us peasants as having the ability to have us in and of itself a fine amount of gold richer. Were I to have you know of the particular rumours that have had me enlightened to the existence of such a coin, I ask of you that a deal to which you betroth your secrecy be had with our forever trusting friendship then enshrined, that both of our place and purpose in our village be propelled to no end.

  • You want to have your knowledge understood by yourself. If you think how you write then I'm not surprised you need others to explain yourself to yourself.
    – user5645
    Commented May 7, 2015 at 11:35
  • 2
    What is the goal? Are you writing a historical novel? Or are you affecting an old-fashioned communication style? Commented May 7, 2015 at 13:44
  • holy cats. I don't think I got three lines in. This isn't archaic; it's circumlocutious to the point of parody. @ChrisSunami's answer is excellent and right on point. Commented May 7, 2015 at 15:33
  • Archaic aside, it's unreadable. If you haven't already, try reading the first sentance out loud.
    – CLockeWork
    Commented May 7, 2015 at 15:49
  • Count the number of times you use the word 'had' in the first sentence. Commented May 7, 2015 at 15:51

2 Answers 2


This doesn't read as archaic, just as convoluted and unnatural. There are some long words, one or two archaic words, and a whole lot of sentence structures that were never used by anyone at any time in history. It has the feel of a very young person attempting to sound older.

If you're trying to emulate the writing of a particular time, I'd suggest you do more research on the writing of that particular time. If you're just trying to convey a sense of oldness, I'd dial it way way back, especially with the sentence structure. People did used to write in a more ornate, circumlocutious style, but it was for the sake of elegance, not for the sake of confusion.

(Hope that was sufficiently trenchant!)


I agree with Chris' answer this is not archaic at all. It just appears that you are trying to write with a bunch of old timey words. Nobody has ever really spoken that way.

For you to be successful at this, you basically would need to be a trained linguist, and really be able to understand the dialect of the time period you are trying to emulate. If you get it wrong, people won't take you seriously; even worse, people may actually get offended.

Another possibility is to write a story using modern English, and then consult with an expert such as a professor which will be able to help you make your writing appear more archaic.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.