[dlisboa]

I don't know about that, though I'm not a linguist. Seems to me most people haven't been literate for that long and the printing press would've been "useless" as a tool to modify the language of populations with only 10-20% literacy well into the 19th century. So 100 or so years seems too short to observe that.

Also some of the most widely spoken languages today do feature a high degree of diglossia between spoken and written variety, to a point where the written language has been outpaced. We could call that evolving. Examples would Brazilian Portuguese and American English (some dialects specifically have changed English grammar).

Also, notoriously, Chinese written characters have been used for languages that evolve independently and are not mutually intelligible for millennia. Them being printed on paper instead of written doesn't make a difference.

What we do have today is a higher exposure and dominance of certain dialects, with some countries even mandating a certain type of speech historically, coupled with a higher degree of conectivity in society to a point where not being intelligible to other people very far away carries a much worse penalty. That tampers some of the evolution much more than printing press in my view.

[cap11235]

A big example would be "standard arabic", a language with millions of readers and no native speakers.