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

141–150 of 169 posts

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#141

Post by bryanrasmussen »

saghm wrote: post #139
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1) Shakespeare didn’t use literary language. His works were written in the common parlance of the day. I'm pretty sure it was a mix. >3) “Early Modern English” is “Modern” only relative to “Middle” and “Old” English. It isn’t modern in any normative sense. It’s just a linguistic classification, not to be taken literally in casual parlance. I don't remember a time when I found Shakespeare difficult reading, but I gue…

> there's a lot of actors who don't read Shakespeare well, and tend to hit the rhythm exactly and heavily, like a bad poetry reading - this makes the text harder to understand If actors can't even be expected to perform it right, why would we expect students to be able to read it right? This sounds like even more of an argument to translate it for modern audiences

>This sounds like even more of an argument to translate it for modern audiences

when speech is uttered in an unnatural rhythm it is harder to understand what is being said then when reading the same text at one's leisure, it is not quite the argument you imagine.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#142

Post by saghm »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #141
saghm wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a lot of actors who don't read Shakespeare well, and tend to hit the rhythm exactly and heavily, like a bad poetry reading - this makes the text harder to understand If actors can't even be expected to perform it right, why would we expect students to be able to read it right? This sounds like even more of an argument to translate it for modern audiences

>This sounds like even more of an argument to translate it for modern audiences when speech is uttered in an unnatural rhythm it is harder to understand what is being said then when reading the same text at one's leisure, it is not quite the argument you imagine.

The point is that modern actors struggling to deliver the correct rhythm is a pretty good sign that the language is hard to parse for a modern person, and that will affect the ability of students to be able to read and understand it.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#143

Post by reddit_clone »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #111
magarnicle wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is modern English, it is generally comprehensible, but it isn't easy for the modern speaker. The main reason is that Shakespeare is full of familiar words that have secondary meanings that are uncommon or unusual for us now. So we find it hard to parse because a word we tend to use as a verb might be a noun, for instance. An example off the time of my head would be the word "fast", which we usually use to mean "qu…

That meaning of fast is still current in phrases such as 'hold fast to'. Similarly for quick. There is a relatively recent film called The Quick and the Dead based on a 1973 novel of the same name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quick_and_the_Dead_(1987_f... If you are moderately well read most such words should not pose more than momentary difficulties.

Hmm, I always interpreted the title of the movie with the current/conventional meaning of 'quick'.

There are two kinds of people. Those who are quick on the trigger. And those who are dead (because they were not quick enough ..)

It was an entertaining movie! Several big name stars.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#144

Post by IndySun »

dwighttk wrote: post #137
IndySun wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think it's already been hugged to death... FWIW, I upvoted your benign and completely true comment. Why on earth should it be downvoted? I consider anyone that downvoted your comment as petty and small minded. But I am outnumbered. The fact is it happens here as often as any online public forum. So despite it's apparently admiral lofty ideals of mature debate, this public forum is overrun, like every online public…

Thanks… I was mildly confused but I guessed it was just that I didn’t add anything to the discussion But I couldn’t! Because I couldn’t see the site! I guess I could have directly asked anyone who could see it to post any alternate links they found.

Yep, the site was down. And for quite a while. One can only ignore, roll eyes, and move on. There you go. Thanks for replying too.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#145

Post by Suppafly »

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's plays are pretty easy to understand though. You could certainly translate them into easier to understand English, but a lot of the tougher language is due to the word play and such, not because the words themselves aren't understandable.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#146

Post by Suppafly »

ipnon wrote: post #36
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…

Yes I find most people who find Shakespeare incomprehensible suddenly find it clear and simple once they read it aloud

>Yes I find most people who find Shakespeare incomprehensible suddenly find it clear and simple once they read it aloud

That but also, it becomes a lot easier once you stop pretending it's incomprehensible and put forth even a tiny effort into understanding it.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#147

Post by AlbertCory »

dbspin wrote: post #115
AlbertCory wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a pretentious, overblown word that apparently had a burst of interest around 2012 and is completely unnecessary (but sounds scientific). What does it give you that "oversimplified" or "simplistic" does not? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r... https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reductive https://mathoverflow.net/questions/321096/what-is-the-defini...

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by pretension - since affecting importance makes little sense in the context. I presume you're misusing the word to refer to 'tall poppy syndrome' or similarly to the Irish colloquialism 'notions'. The word reductive is perfectly common in English writing - according to the OED it dates to the 1500s. Perhaps it's new and frightening to you because you're level of literacy is not w…

hey, way to be exemplify that condescension:

> Perhaps it's new and frightening to you because you're level of literacy is not what it might be?

and you can't spell "your." My level of literacy is most likely much higher than yours.

Using pretentious words in order to sound more educated than you are is the very thing I'm talking about.

> To reduce to available pool to the most efficient use of letters?

(Pun intended there, I guess?) "Reducing" things to their essence is what we do in science and mathematics. It's a good thing.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#148

Post by AlbertCory »

Affric wrote: post #83
AlbertCory wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a pretentious, overblown word that apparently had a burst of interest around 2012 and is completely unnecessary (but sounds scientific). What does it give you that "oversimplified" or "simplistic" does not? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r... https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reductive https://mathoverflow.net/questions/321096/what-is-the-defini...

“Simplistic” isn’t too bad but “oversimplified” is a terrible word.

I won't attribute this to Einstein:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/

That word you dislike means you've violated "But Not Simpler"

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#149

Post by Suppafly »

inglor_cz wrote: post #108
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…

I am generally a lover of history, but Shakespeare's comedies are just too "weird" for me. The plots that tend to rotate around some elaborate disguise etc. just cannot "roll me in". I attended a local adaptation of the Twelfth Night a few days ago. The actors really did their best, but the plot felt like product of a brain injury to me. I wonder what has changed since the 16th century, as obviously Shakespeare's hum…

Someone of that is similar to the Seinfeld is unfunny trope right? Where it's not funny because we've been inundated with the same humor from other media before experiencing shakespeare, so it seems trite.

Re: Making Elizabethan plays understandable and fun to read

#150

Post by Suppafly »

recursive wrote: post #135
kwhitefoot wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That meaning of fast is still current in phrases such as 'hold fast to'. Similarly for quick. There is a relatively recent film called The Quick and the Dead based on a 1973 novel of the same name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quick_and_the_Dead_(1987_f... If you are moderately well read most such words should not pose more than momentary difficulties.

I guess I'm not moderately well read.

>I guess I'm not moderately well read.

At least you're honest about it. Assuming you aren't just being sarcastic. A lot of people never read much beyond whatever is required for their schooling but pretend otherwise.

Post reply on HN