Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

elizabethandrama.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 169 posts

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#121

Post by lieks »

hnfong wrote: post #113
forgetfreeman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rubbish. Comprehending this material has been well within the capabilities of 16 year olds for as long as the material has been taught. For your premise to hold true there would need to have been a significant diminishment in children's linguistic and reading skills which would no doubt be reflected in all manner of standardized testing across the cohort. If someone's struggling with the material it seems more likely…

Markest thou well, good sir, thy words are naught But foolish prattle. Forsooth, for many a year, The younglings of sixteen winters have grasped This very material with ease and little fear. If thy premise held water, then, by the stars, A woeful decline in linguistic arts Would manifest itself in tests of old, A downward trend that would not be untold. But nay, 'tis not the youth that falter here, But rather thou, d…

...huh. As a non-native speaker, that was... easy to read? Where did I learn this vocabulary again? I haven't read Shakespeare's works yet (though they are on my reading list).

What makes it hard to read for some people and not others (as with any translation problem) is unfamiliarity.

It's easier to learn just japanese honorifics and then read a partial translation than to learn all of japanese and read the original. But a full translation loses that dimension of meaning.

But it's not as difficult to learn some Early Modern English vocabulary, and this way you can avoid losing any meaning. I hear there are a lot of puns that wouldn't work with modern vocabulary.

If it wasn't required reading in English-speaking countries, "translating" it probably wouldn't be even in consideration.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#122

Post by sbelskie »

kens wrote: post #13

The well-known linguist John McWhorter argues that Shakespeare's plays should be translated into modern English since they are written in a language that we effectively no longer speak. "Indeed, the irony today is that the Russians, the French and other people in foreign countries possess Shakespeare to a much greater extent than we do, for the simple reason that unlike us, they get to enjoy Shakespeare in the langua…

“ Indeed, the irony today is that the Russians, the French and other people in foreign countries possess Shakespeare to a much greater extent than we do, for the simple reason that unlike us, they get to enjoy Shakespeare in the language they speak."

I think the more radical argument and the one closer to the truth (but not the whole truth) is that these countries possess nothing of Shakespeare, for the simple reason that they, unlike us, have never read him.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#123

Post by mauvehaus »

kens wrote: post #13

The well-known linguist John McWhorter argues that Shakespeare's plays should be translated into modern English since they are written in a language that we effectively no longer speak. "Indeed, the irony today is that the Russians, the French and other people in foreign countries possess Shakespeare to a much greater extent than we do, for the simple reason that unlike us, they get to enjoy Shakespeare in the langua…

I think a better question isn't "is it hard to read/consume as originally written?", but "Is it worth getting over the hump of reading/consuming as originally written?".

I'd argue the answer to that second question is "yes". It's relatively understandable as Early Modern English, and it's eye opening just how loose the grammar and phrasing can be while remaining understandable. It's delightful to see how Shakespeare plays with the language and a treat to find unfamiliar words and phrases.

Is some of it a little cumbersome? Sure. Are there jokes that have lost something over the last 400 years? Absolutely. Are some of the stories a little ridiculous? Certainly. Is it also a fascinating glimpse into English as a language? Absolutely! Does everyone delight in language as much as I do? Of course not.

I remember reading A Midsummer Night's Dream in 7th grade and the book we used having the play on the left page, and notes for the modern reader on the right page. I found that to be a great way of making the text accessible. Especially as a seventh grader.

For the record, I found Pride and Prejudice (without the zombies) to be a harder read than any of the Shakespeare I've read.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#125

Post by jermaustin1 »

mauvehaus wrote: post #123
kens wrote: post #13

The well-known linguist John McWhorter argues that Shakespeare's plays should be translated into modern English since they are written in a language that we effectively no longer speak. "Indeed, the irony today is that the Russians, the French and other people in foreign countries possess Shakespeare to a much greater extent than we do, for the simple reason that unlike us, they get to enjoy Shakespeare in the langua…

I think a better question isn't "is it hard to read/consume as originally written?", but "Is it worth getting over the hump of reading/consuming as originally written?". I'd argue the answer to that second question is "yes". It's relatively understandable as Early Modern English, and it's eye opening just how loose the grammar and phrasing can be while remaining understandable. It's delightful to see how Shakespeare…

This is my view as well. I'm no literature buff, but some of my fondest lessons in school were dissecting the meanings of Shakespearean prose. Finding the fun pronunciations that turned something boring into something humorously vulgar. His play on words is what makes so much of his comedies work even today.

It is always a treat to get to watch a play that stays true to the cadence that Shakespeare wrote for.

Can I understand an entire play while watching it: no. Can I find the fart joke: YES!

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#126

Post by goosedragons »

lieks wrote: post #121
hnfong wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markest thou well, good sir, thy words are naught But foolish prattle. Forsooth, for many a year, The younglings of sixteen winters have grasped This very material with ease and little fear. If thy premise held water, then, by the stars, A woeful decline in linguistic arts Would manifest itself in tests of old, A downward trend that would not be untold. But nay, 'tis not the youth that falter here, But rather thou, d…

...huh. As a non-native speaker, that was... easy to read? Where did I learn this vocabulary again? I haven't read Shakespeare's works yet (though they are on my reading list). What makes it hard to read for some people and not others (as with any translation problem) is unfamiliarity. It's easier to learn just japanese honorifics and then read a partial translation than to learn all of japanese and read the original…

That's not actually Shakespeare. Enough word meanings have shifted and other words that were once common becoming rare that it makes it much harder to read. A lot of context has been lost too because we're not 16th century English people. It's particularly bad in the "comedies". If every joke has to be pointed out and explained is it really a joke still?

Like here's some real random Hamlet:

"My lord, as I was sewing in my chamber, Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbrac’d, No hat upon his head, his stockings foul’d, Ungart’red, and down-gyved to his ankle, Pale as his shirt, his knees knocking each other, And with a look so piteous in purport As if he had been loosed out of hell To speak of horrors, he comes before me."

What exactly is down-gyved? Purport as noun here is weird for contemporary speakers even if they have an idea of the meaning and a lot of the clothing terms like doublet and ungartered are not spectacularly common these days.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#127

Post by graemep »

recursive wrote: post #42
graemep wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shakespeare is modern English and perfectly comprehensible. Beowulf is not. Yes, there are some words that have changed (like his example of "character") but those are few. There are always difficulties. There are lots of words that have different meanings in British, American and other forms of English ("bum", "fag", etc.), or that are offensive in some places but not others, different usages..... The way to make Sh…

> Shakespeare is modern English and perfectly comprehensible My personal experience is inconsistent with this. I'm not an English expert, but I'm a native speaker. I generally am able to communicate with people using the language. Despite these qualifications, I was hard-pressed to find any lines that I could make sense of in Shakespeare. This is not a criticism of the material. Also it's not really a self-criticism…

I thin you are right (and this is reflected in other comments) that some people find Elizabethan language hard and others do not.

There are lots of things that prevent some English speakers understanding others. Dialect, vocabulary and culture for a start. I often hear or read (and use) words in some places that I would not use in others (a huge range from lakh to orthogonal). I often read things that other people might have a problem reading, or things that contain words I need to look up.

Short of using only very simple language all the time it is impossible to find anything that is not going to present difficulties to some significant group of people.

> Despite these qualifications, I was hard-pressed to find any lines that I could make sense of in Shakespeare

Really. Take a look at the first few exchanges in the play I know best:

https://shakespeare.mit.edu/midsummer/full.html

The word I can find that has had a change of meaning is "revenue" and that is slight. You can read a long way down without seeing anything that is hard to understand.

My children have been able to enjoy Shakespeare from before before they were teenagers. I think it is because they read a variety of books so are not confused by unfamiliar language.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#128

Post by graemep »

materielle wrote: post #81
jfengel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shakespeare is modern English. Linguists describe it as "Early Modern English". It's contemporaneous with the King James Bible, which is still widely read, without translation. The difficulty with Shakespeare isn't that it's in Elizabethan English, but that it's in poetry. The Russians and French have strong poetic cultures. They enjoy reading poetry, and the challenge of writing it, including translation. That just…

1) Shakespeare didn’t use literary language. His works were written in the common parlance of the day. 2) It’s actually easier to read than to watch live. We’ve heard all the arguments by now. “Go see it live”, “You need to see it with better actors”, “It makes more sense when the accents are British”. All made up, none of it is true. 3) “Early Modern English” is “Modern” only relative to “Middle” and “Old” English.…

My kids never had any problem with Shakespeare. I have been to several of his plays in the last few years with my daughter who has just turned 16 and she had no problem - and she did not seem to have any problem much younger than that. At one performance there was a school group including early teen, maybe pre teen kids, sitting in front of us who were clearly enjoying the play (among other things they were discussing it, and had to be told to be quiet by their teacher in the interval).

> But for high school students in Ohio

Maybe they need to improve their English comprehension closer to what we seem to have here in Warwickshire.

To be fair, some kids do find it difficult - but you learn most by tackling difficult stuff, not by doing only what is easy.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#129

Post by jfengel »

eszed wrote: post #98
jfengel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shakespeare definitely doesn't need to be done in RP. It's no closer to Elizabethan English than American is. I've seen OP performances. They don't especially move me, but I think it's because so much effort is spent on the accent. The audience does adjust to it rather quickly, but it still requires a lot of heavy lifting to make any Shakespeare play accessible to modern sensibilities. (Pacing, culture, references, e…

I agree with everything you say. Are you North American? I found OP largely to be a curiosity to American performers and audiences, but a revelation and a revolution to people in the UK who have only ever associated Shakespeare with RP. At least, that's how it was over a decade ago when I first performed in OP there. I remember once being in a workshop with a Scottish actor who did a creditable job at a speech from M…

Fascinating! I'm glad that they're breaking that RP grip on Shakespeare. It's certainly a valid way to do it, but Shakespeare himself wanted a diversity of accents, especially for his lower-class characters.

It's funny that you mention Mack. A few years ago I was directing a Maccers whose native accent was Pittsburgh. Not very different from the general American, but Mac has a line, "I have supped full with horrors". Which in his accent comes out as "full with whores".

I wasn't gonna mention it, but the cast giggled, and I was afraid the audience might too. It took rather a lot of work to find the right pronunciation for one word, and I think I made a mistake even trying. The cast hears it every night but an audience would have blipped right past it.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#130

Post by carterdmorgan »

graemep wrote: post #23
kens wrote: post #13

The well-known linguist John McWhorter argues that Shakespeare's plays should be translated into modern English since they are written in a language that we effectively no longer speak. "Indeed, the irony today is that the Russians, the French and other people in foreign countries possess Shakespeare to a much greater extent than we do, for the simple reason that unlike us, they get to enjoy Shakespeare in the langua…

Shakespeare is modern English and perfectly comprehensible. Beowulf is not. Yes, there are some words that have changed (like his example of "character") but those are few. There are always difficulties. There are lots of words that have different meanings in British, American and other forms of English ("bum", "fag", etc.), or that are offensive in some places but not others, different usages..... The way to make Sh…

You can argue that Shakespeare is comprehensible to a modern English speaker, but I don't think you can argue that it's modern English. The different "you" forms alone are enough to make it difficult to understand for most modern speakers.
Post reply on HN