Shakespeare in modern English

[°Leprechaun]

10 day poll.
I like both. The original version is hard to understand but often more poetic.

[White Trash]

...Shakespeare is written in modern English isn't it?

[AtorBoltox]

How is this even a question? Who would want to read or watch Shakespeare with bland, modern dialogue?

[Frodo]

In the original English, and in the original pronunciation at the time he lived.

[pikachu]

I'm not the biggest Shakespeare guy, but anything other than the original English is blasphemy imo.

[°Leprechaun]

I'm not the biggest Shakespeare guy, but anything other than the original English is blasphemy imo.

Interesting. The same attitude exists about the KJV Bible.

Wherefore do ye think so? Wherefore wonder wherefore and wherefore are there so many who can't even use good logic, good math, proper grammar and proper spelling and yet they want to read books in a language even more difficult than the one we speak now and don't speak it that good, haha (well is the proper word). Me thinks ye do protest too much?
Me also thinks that many people at this site were absent the day that they taught grammar in grammar school. Me thinks as well that people are basically rotten anyway, and wherefore dost me think that?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In the original English, and in the original pronunciation at the time he lived.

This, especially since it's actually easier to understand this way than when done in RP.

[°Leprechaun]

Me suggest that any who voted "yes" be required to post everything from now on in the language of the KJV and Shakespeare. Wherefore should they doest otherwise?

[°Leprechaun]

Me thinks that all the world is but a stage and those who post at Atlas are mere actors and actresses. Some of the old ways are good with words long since forgotten like "yon" and "ye" and "thine". Some prefer "you" to "thou" but the former is ambigous; for if I say "you" what do I mean? singular you or plural you. Wherefore does language have to evolve? I don't think it does. I mean, not in a bad way. Improper language exists due to laziness of mind.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The issue is that most of Shakespeare is in verse, which, unlike prose, tends not to survive 'updating' or translation.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Nathan is correct, of course.

[°Leprechaun]

The issue is that most of Shakespeare is in verse, which, unlike prose, tends not to survive 'updating' or translation.

Well so is a lot of literature written in foreign languages. Am I supposed to learn 3,000 languages so I can read them as well?

[°Leprechaun]

What about all those for whom English is a second language? That's an interesting question.
English is not an easy language to learn if it isn't your first language and I admit that I am not even fluent in other dialects of English, either, like British.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

People whose first language is late Modern English can learn to make out early Modern English. People should be capable of encountering and interacting with registers of their own language other than the stripped-down sub-Hemingway representational-realist pap that passes for dialogue in contemporary lit fic. For God's sake.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The language of Shakespeare really isn't particularly different from what's spoken today. It's a bit archaic but that's all; it's not a different form of English and shouldn't be hard to understand. A lot of the words that might strike Americans as funny are still in common usage in parts of England. It's not like Chaucer or whoever.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Honestly, Shakespeare is a lot easier to read that dense 18th/19th century prose ffs.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Honestly, Shakespeare is a lot easier to read that dense 18th/19th century prose ffs.

Yeah. You never see people talking about the need for No Fear Henry James, even though it's a lot harder to follow The Turn of the Screw well enough to be properly scared than it is to hammer into a high school sophomore's head what 'wherefore' means. Even the sort of things that people do with Jane Austen's plots aren't really comparable.

Also you'd never see someone arguing that, for example, the word 'dipso' in Brideshead Revisited should be replaced with 'crunk'.

[angus]

Wherefore should they doest otherwise?

I don't think you conjugated that correctly.  Since you're going for the subjunctive mood, should is the appropriate auxiliary verb, but the main verb is conjugated as "do"

Even if you wanted the the second person, as in "Wherefore shouldest he do otherwise" the word "do" would still be conjugated as "do."

("doest" is present indicative, not subjunctive, and even then only for second-person singular.  e.g., "Thou doest me a favor by leaving me, wench.  Be gone!")

The phrase "from now on" doesn't start to show up until about the very late 1600s.

My rendering of your post in Jamesean English would be something like this:

Might I suggest that any man who voted in the affirmative be compell'd henceforth to post, regarding all matters, in the language of His Majesty the King.  Wherefore should they do otherwise?

Anyway, shakespeare is not so very difficult to read.  As has been pointed out by Nathan, what makes Shakespeare's plays difficult to understand is that Shakespearean actors, both in the US and in the UK, are coached in the ridiculous affectations commonly known as "received pronunciation," which only became fashionable 200 years after Shakespeare's death.

[Storebought]

Honestly, Shakespeare is a lot easier to read that dense 18th/19th century prose ffs.

No, it really isn't. Henry James is still easier to read than James Joyce, let alone a 17th century James Joyce which is what Shakespeare is.

[°Leprechaun]

Good post angus, as I said, I am not fluent in Shakespearean English. I don't know though if Shakespearen English is all that easy, as you say it is. Does that make me stupid? However, I do enjoy reading the original Shakespeare, but having a modern translation makes some of it easier to understand. A lot of Shakespeare is easy, but a modern translation is a good eductional tool to understand the etymology of words. I know, for example, that words in KVJ have changed a lot.

 The difference between Shakespeare and the KJV, is that KJV is itself a translation. While I don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God, it is at least a valuable piece of literature to understand the history of religion. If people want to read Shakespeare in the original language, why not read the Bible in the original language as well?

For example the verb "to love" can be agapao or phileo. This doesn't come across in English. The verb "to want" used to be "to be lacking" or perhaps to be in need of. So, many people may misread Shakespeare and the Bible because they are not aware of changes in the meaning of words. Believe it or not, there are actually people who don't know what the word "Wherefore" means. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and Shakespeare in the original may sound sweet, but sometimesI prefer knowing something than just appreciating the sweetness of it.

[°Leprechaun]

Perhaps I would have done better had I had a poll of original Beowulf vs modern translation.
Or do you all speak fluent medieval English, as well:

http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/beowulf-oe.asp

[°Leprechaun]

94.1% of those 17 who have now voted in this poll at least read Shakespeare, apparently, and that is good to know. Some how I doubt that that represents a typical person living in the USA, but I could be wrong.

[°Leprechaun]

A useful example,

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

Do you know which word in the above has changed in meaning?

[°Leprechaun]

I know that 1945 is a larger number than 1488. I do not however, know why someone might be motivated to inform me of that fact. If there is more to this obvious truth than meets the eye, can some tell me the answer in Beowulfian English? Or if not, in Shakespearan English? If the latter I won't need a translation, but if the former I definately will.

[°Leprechaun]

Perhaps the answer is 457, which is the 88th prime number, but I am at a loss to see how this will help me to better myself. If anyone can explain 457 perhaps you can explain 42, as well.