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.
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.