Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 12 June 2026

English started out as, essentially, a kind of German. Old English is so unlike the modern version that it feels like a stretch to think of them as the same language at all. Hwæt, we gardena in geardagum þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon – does that really mean ‘So, we Spear-Danes have heard of the tribe-kings’ glory in days of yore’? Icelanders can still read similar stories written in the Old Norse ancestor of their language 1,000 years ago, and yet, to the untrained eye, Beowulf might as well be in Turkish.

The first thing that got us from there to here was the fact that, when the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (and also Frisians) brought their language to England, the island was already inhabited by people who spoke very different tongues. Their languages were Celtic ones, today represented by Welsh, Irish and Breton across the Channel in France. The Celts were subjugated but survived, and since there were only about 250,000 Germanic invaders – roughly the population of a modest burg such as Jersey City – very quickly most of the people speaking Old English were Celts.

Crucially, their languages were quite unlike English. For one thing, the verb came first (came first the verb). But also, they had an odd construction with the verb do: they used it to form a question, to make a sentence negative, and even just as a kind of seasoning before any verb. Do you walk? I do not walk. I do walk. That looks familiar now because the Celts started doing it in their rendition of English. But before that, such sentences would have seemed bizarre to an English speaker – as they would today in just about any language other than our own and the surviving Celtic ones. Notice how even to dwell upon this queer usage of do is to realise something odd in oneself, like being made aware that there is always a tongue in your mouth.

At this date there is no documented language on earth beyond Celtic and English that uses do in just this way. Thus English’s weirdness began with its transformation in the mouths of people more at home with vastly different tongues. We’re still talking like them, and in ways we’d never think of. When saying ‘eeny, meeny, miny, moe’, have you ever felt like you were kind of counting? Well, you are – in Celtic numbers, chewed up over time but recognisably descended from the ones rural Britishers used when counting animals and playing games. ‘Hickory, dickory, dock’ – what in the world do those words mean? Well, here’s a clue: hovera, dovera, dick were eight, nine and ten in that same Celtic counting list.

The second thing that happened was that yet more Germanic-speakers came across the sea meaning business. This wave began in the ninth century, and this time the invaders were speaking another Germanic offshoot, Old Norse. But they didn’t impose their language. Instead, they married local women and switched to English.

Q1. Based on the first paragraph of the passage, what is the primary point the author is making by comparing the linguistic abilities of modern Icelanders to modern English speakers? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The first paragraph contrasts the stability of the Icelandic language — where modern speakers can still read Old Norse texts from 1,000 years ago — with the extreme instability of English, where modern speakers find Beowulf entirely unrecognizable. This implies that English underwent a far more rapid, radical transformation than Icelandic over the same time frame. Option 1 takes the metaphorical reference to "Turkish" literally. Option 3 shifts the blame to the modern speaker's lack of training, rather than the core linguistic evolution described. Option 4 introduces geographical isolation, a concept completely absent from the text. Hence, option 2.Q2. Which of the following findings, if true, would most strongly reinforce the author's argument regarding the historical origin of the auxiliary verb "do" in modern English? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The author's central premise is that the unique grammatical usage of "do" in English is a direct consequence of Celtic influence. If option 2 is true — that Celtic languages like Welsh and Irish used this exact unique structure before they ever encountered English — it strongly solidifies the claim that the trait was imported from them. Option 1 would weaken the argument by suggesting "do" might have come from other Germanic branches. Option 3 undermines the idea that Celtic structure survived to influence English. Option 4 directly weakens the passage's later claim about Celtic counting numbers surviving in rural Britain. Hence, option 2.Q3. The author mentions the phrases "eeny, meeny, miny, moe" and "hickory, dickory, dock" primarily to: Correct Option 3 … Explanation: The author notes that we are still talking like the Celts "in ways we'd never think of," and points out that these seemingly nonsensical nursery rhymes are actually remnants of a corrupted Celtic counting system. This serves as tangible evidence of a lingering Celtic layer in modern English. Option 1 overgeneralizes nursery rhymes as the "most effective" medium. Option 2 introduces an unmentioned base-twelve mathematical system. Option 4 invents a historical narrative about codes and Old Norse invaders that is completely unsupported by the text. Hence, option 3.Q4. Which of the following options best captures the main thesis of the passage? Correct Option 1 … Explanation: The passage traces the journey of English from a purely Germanic tongue to its modern form. The primary mechanism highlighted is that when Germanic invaders arrived, they were vastly outnumbered by the native Celts, who learned English but fundamentally warped its grammar (the verb "do") and vocabulary (counting rhymes) in the process. Option 1 encapsulates this main thesis perfectly. Option 2 misrepresents the invaders as causing a "collapse" and gets the demographic math backward. Option 3 assigns verb structure to Old Norse, whereas the text explicitly gives verb structure to Celtic. Option 4 claims Old Norse erased Celtic influences, which directly contradicts the author's assertion that "we're still talking like them." Hence, option 1.