final thoughts. I read up on it during the day. it appears that people claim they see new, completely anachronistic vocabulary enter these texts. theoretically, we should be able to prove the Mandela effect on linguistic basis. if a word appears in a Bible translation from 1611, that has no business being there due to its anachronistic nature, then that proves it. however, what is or primary source of information? the Internet. it's so easy to alter information on the Internet. (I can't stop thinking about sonne as meaning son, never seen it used like this, and I read middle and early modern English texts, I think it would have jumped at me from the bookpage, it's a common word after all). regarding early modern English I remembered something that I was always taught about Shakespeare. he's known as the creator of modern English. he's said to have introduced 1700 words into English vocabulary, meaning these words have never appeared in any historical or contemporary texts before Shakespeare used them. what are the odds? was Shakespeare in the business of writing fancy poetry that is read at your leisure time, that you can reread multiple times before you finally make out the meaning of a particular word? or was he a playwright, meaning the vocabulary he used had to be clear and well understood by the common public, in order to be able to communicate the plot of the play swiftly and without any misunderstandings? so I looked up Shakespeare and Mandela and guess what, turns out Mandela was an avid reader of Shakespeare, it inspired him throughout his career, and there is even some copy of Shakespeare plays signed by Mandela lying on a shelf in some museum. all articles were about Mandela's passion for Shakespeare. that's exactly how you spoil a searchword. if anyone has the same question about Mandela effect in relation to Shakespeare, the search engines will misdirect them to the the story about Nelson Mandela's reading habits. what a coincidence.