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

Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#61

Post by acqq »

goto11 wrote: post #54
acqq wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic? No, but I'll enjoy reading your argument why you are asking that.

Monster is from Latin and only entered English after the Norman conquest. Anachronistic and from the wrong part of the world!

> from the wrong part of the world

Can that be argued? It's not that the "contact" and influence didn't exist, it's just that these specific people wouldn't use that language at that moment of time. The Romans were already on English ground long before Beowulf was written so using Latin words there is still much more acceptable to me -- it doesn't imply some access or historical impossibility that didn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar%27s_invasions_of...

The same can't be said about sashimi. Again, like in the example of the movies (in other messages), I'm simply not expecting absolute purity, I just find Seiko watches too distracting there.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#62

Post by at_a_remove »

patio11 wrote: post #57
tptacek wrote: post #11

This calls to mind a lot of what McWhorter says about Shakespeare --- that it's an emperor's new clothes situation, we're only pretending we can understand 16th century English, but really not getting any of the original intent because none of the references make sense, and that if we really want to understand what those works mean, we need to update the language. If you read interviews Headley has given, you get the…

There are a lot of people whose single recollection of Romeo and Juliet is the garden scene, and who understand that scene to have Juliet aware that Romeo is present in the garden because of "Wherefore art thou Romeo?", due to simple confusion in not knowing that "Wherefore" means "Why?" and that Juliet goes into an extended meditation on why Romeo was born as Romeo , in the rival family, and therefore off-limits to…

The "Wherefore" bit is actually an OKCupid question due to how commonly misunderstood it is.

When I tutored Shakespeare to kids, I always prepped the vocab for each scene, got extra copies ready, and made the parents act out bits. All out-loud. It really helps.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#63

Post by pvg »

tptacek wrote: post #59
patio11 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of people whose single recollection of Romeo and Juliet is the garden scene, and who understand that scene to have Juliet aware that Romeo is present in the garden because of "Wherefore art thou Romeo?", due to simple confusion in not knowing that "Wherefore" means "Why?" and that Juliet goes into an extended meditation on why Romeo was born as Romeo , in the rival family, and therefore off-limits to…

McWhorter's argument, distilled, is that we should not teach Shakespeare. :)

Is it? I've read some of the articles he's written about this and it seems to be mostly 'watching performances of Shakespeare's plays does not magically make you understand Early Modern English'.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#64

Post by tptacek »

pvg wrote: post #63
tptacek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McWhorter's argument, distilled, is that we should not teach Shakespeare. :)

Is it? I've read some of the articles he's written about this and it seems to be mostly 'watching performances of Shakespeare's plays does not magically make you understand Early Modern English'.

I'm probably blurring stuff he's said on Lexicon Valley with stuff he's written.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#65

Post by pvg »

tptacek wrote: post #64
pvg wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? I've read some of the articles he's written about this and it seems to be mostly 'watching performances of Shakespeare's plays does not magically make you understand Early Modern English'.

I'm probably blurring stuff he's said on Lexicon Valley with stuff he's written.

I guess I'll have to listen to those now to hunt down your weaselry!

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#66

Post by goto11 »

acqq wrote: post #61
goto11 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monster is from Latin and only entered English after the Norman conquest. Anachronistic and from the wrong part of the world!

> from the wrong part of the world Can that be argued? It's not that the "contact" and influence didn't exist, it's just that these specific people wouldn't use that language at that moment of time. The Romans were already on English ground long before Beowulf was written so using Latin words there is still much more acceptable to me -- it doesn't imply some access or historical impossibility that didn't exist. https…

It is not a Latin word, it is a word from Old French which is a Romance language evolved from Vulgar Latin. A lot of words from Old French entered English after the Norman conquest. This is the major difference between Old English (the language of Beowulf) and Middle English.

You may not care about any of that, but my point is a translation into modern English is by definition anachronistic. Avoiding 20th century loanwords like sashimi will not make it authentic, at best it will make the text feel slightly old fashioned, but it would still be wholly anachronistic.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#67

Post by billfruit »

goto11 wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #11

This calls to mind a lot of what McWhorter says about Shakespeare --- that it's an emperor's new clothes situation, we're only pretending we can understand 16th century English, but really not getting any of the original intent because none of the references make sense, and that if we really want to understand what those works mean, we need to update the language. If you read interviews Headley has given, you get the…

Shakespeare have a lot of references to biblical and classical mythology which was common shared knowledge at the time but less known today. I wonder what would be an appropriate translation to a modern context. WWII? Start Wars or Lord of the Rings references? (I'm not being sarcastic, I think it is a genuinely interesting question.) But in general the strength of Shakespeare is the language and poetry, so it will b…

That is the express reason with which Thomas Bulfinch wrote his "Mythologies", because his pupils were having trouble understanding English poems because they couldn't figure out allusions to mythology. Reading that small book could "unlock" a lot of English literature for one.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#68

Post by acqq »

goto11 wrote: post #66
acqq wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> from the wrong part of the world Can that be argued? It's not that the "contact" and influence didn't exist, it's just that these specific people wouldn't use that language at that moment of time. The Romans were already on English ground long before Beowulf was written so using Latin words there is still much more acceptable to me -- it doesn't imply some access or historical impossibility that didn't exist. https…

It is not a Latin word, it is a word from Old French which is a Romance language evolved from Vulgar Latin. A lot of words from Old French entered English after the Norman conquest. This is the major difference between Old English (the language of Beowulf) and Middle English. You may not care about any of that, but my point is a translation into modern English is by definition anachronistic. Avoiding 20th century loa…

For the reference, the Latin word is monstrum, and like I've said, there were surely people using that word while living on the territory of today's England long before Beowulf was written.

I'm quite sure no Japanese were living there either before or at the time Beowulf was written. That's the difference that I consider jarring, not the fact that the newer language is the language of the translation. Even in English, not all words have the same "weight" -- some simply "sound" new and have certain "modern" connotations and some don't. Some imply origin from one place, some from another, etc. It's simply more complex than "the whole English is newer, who cares" approach.

My favorite example from 1490 is:

"In this book, Caxton tells the story of some merchants from the North of England trying to buy eggs from a woman in the South of England. The northerner uses the word egges, derived from Old Norse, but the Southern woman, who uses the word eyren from the Old English, does not understand. A humorous misunderstanding ensues."

https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126611.html

Post reply on HN