![shake[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/69AkmqJ.gif "shake[1].gif")
I guess it's really more about plays rather than strictly literature, but I think Shakespeare is sufficiently literary to be suited to this board.
Anyway, the question is, do you think Shakespeare's plays ought to be performed translated into modern English? Why or why not?
My own take is that they should, because his language archaic enough to be rather difficult for a modern reader to understand without the aid of a dictionary. I also say that if Chekhov in English is still Chekhov that Shakespeare in Modern English can still be Shakespeare.
When possible it is always best to read authors in their original language. Hence why modern-English Shakespeare will always be pleb-tier.
>>7377242
>modern English began after the great vowel shift in about 1550
>Shakespeare wrote in the early 1600s
Shakespeare is in modern English
>>7377253
Do you think we ought to perform Aristophanes' plays in the original Greek?
>>7377255
Linguistically, yes, he wrote in Modern English. But it's Early Modern English, and, perhaps most importantly, often difficult for a modern reader without the help of a dictionary.
>>7377262
>often difficult for a modern reader without the help of a dictionary.
thats why they have the "translations" so you can familiarize yourself with it
Shakespeare's plays are rife with wordplay and puns and translations would lose a significant number of these jokes and innuendos
>>7377255
Early Modern English to be specific, although it's not that different from today's English. Aside from some poetic rewordings and word meanings that used to be different, it's the same language I'm using to communicate to you. The "archaic" things can easily be cleared up by footnotes that shouldn't stop any patient reader.
This is Olde English:
>Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in ġeār-dagum,
>þēod-cyninga, þrym ġefrūnon,
>hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.
This is Middle English:
>Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
>The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
>And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
>Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
This is Modern English:
>To be, or not to be, that is the question:
>Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
>The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
>Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
>And by opposing end them:
>>7377275
Should we have to read a footnoted edition of a play before going to see it if we want to understand it? It wouldn't have to be a major alteration to make it comprehensible to a modern viewer, either, just about 5 to 10 percent change.
>>7377255
You are replying to a bait thread. Did you honestly think someone was retarded enough to start a thread by saying
>I guess it's really more about plays rather than strictly literature
? Just sage and move on
>>7377290
>5-10% change
Where are you getting these numbers?
In my experience with the arts, you don't see a play to enjoy the writings of the author of a play, a the written play is the framework for the artistry of the performed play. The performance is primary, you're judging the actors and director interpretations of the written play as a piece of art. If your seeing a play, you should definitely be familiar with the play beforehand. T
>>7377290
Considering that meter takes up a whole lot of shakespeares dialogue I don't think it should. Simplified language is already used in abridged versions for children so if you don't understand the language just go see those shows.
Besides, in order for this to happen you need to convince the actors. Lucky they are far more passionate about shakespeare than you are and would defend his language to the death.
>>7377302
You have to think a bit about Shakespeare's intent. He wasn't trying to write things that you read with annotations first and then go to seeー he was trying to write popular entertainment.
>>7377328
I've actually read parts of Hamlet in Esperanto; the translator rather ingeniously phrases it to fit the same pentameter. If it can be done in Esperanto, surely it can be done in modern English. It wouldn't necessarily be simplified either; it would have to be in language that's still poetic, but updated enough to be understandable to a modern audience.
>>7377364
that was when it was considered entertainment, now it is considered art
>>7377242
No. If you're not capable of understanding Shakespeare's English (which is only from like 400 years ago, Jesus Christ, and honestly isn't that erudite), then you're too fucking dense to understand anything else about him, either.
Also, 95% of translations out on the market are garbage that dramatically distort the original, and you're living a lie if you tell yourself otherwise.
>>7377242
most translations butcher his work.
>>7377242
But Chekhov in english is not still Chekhov.
>>7377279
Isn't Old English really just Anglo-Saxon?
Was English even a word prior to the 11th century?
>>7377257
Yes, but it's completely different when you're talking about a complete other language.
Also, it's not the same, considering shakespeare is known for his aesthetic writing.
Most of the value comes from the use of language. If you're not reading the original then you're wasting your time.
>>7377290
There is no fucking way you will have trouble understanding what is going on.
>>7377364
Yes, and if he was still alive, we could've asked him to rewrite it :)
>>7377845
Old English is just late Anglo-saxon
>>7377833
I think that a lot of people who think they understand Shakespeare's language without help aren't really understanding as much as they think they are, because not only are a lot of the words archaic, but a lot of the words have changed meaning. For example, no one today, unless they're an expert in historical English, knows that 'character' used to be able to function as a verb meaning 'to write', so to modern viewers 'and these few precepts in thy memory look thou character' is gibberish until they find that out.
I'm a non-native speaker, I found reading Hamlet really annoying. Should I just read a translation next time SP?
>>7377279
liar. THIS is early modern English:
Ham. To be, or not to be, that is the Question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to dye, to sleepe
No more; and by a sleepe, to say we end
The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes
That Flesh is heyre too? 'Tis a consummation
Deuoutly to be wish'd. To dye to sleepe,
To sleepe, perchance to Dreame; I, there's the rub,
For in that sleepe of death, what dreames may come,
When we haue shufflel'd off this mortall coile,
Must giue vs pawse. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would beare the Whips and Scornes of time,
The Oppressors wrong, the poore mans Contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd Loue, the Lawes delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurnes
That patient merit of the vnworthy takes,
When he himselfe might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardles beare
To grunt and sweat vnder a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The vndiscouered Countrey, from whose Borne
No Traueller returnes, Puzels the will,
And makes vs rather beare those illes we haue,
Then flye to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of vs all,
And thus the Natiue hew of Resolution
Is sicklied o're, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprizes of great pith and moment,
With this regard their Currants turne away,
And loose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The faire Ophelia? Nimph, in thy Orizons
Be all my sinnes remembred.
Ophe. Good my Lord,
How does your Honor for this many a day?
>>7379018
It's the same thing (ie, same pronunciation)
>>7377242
I recently read Hamlet and Othello. A few times, I was stumped (non-native english speaker), so I'd look at sparknotes No Fear Shakespeare.
I cannot conceive of a way where it would be possible to translate Shakespeare without absolutely killing his art. It is so heavily based on the beauty of his use of language. Translating it would be akin to having to recreate it, and I hardly think that possible.
>>7379009
Maybe Shakespeare isn't for you.
>>7378962
it doesn't matter whether the modern student misses the meaning of a few lines. any high school aged idiot can understand Macbeth well enough to get something out of it rather than nothing. Trying to make old texts perfectly comprehensible to children will get you nowhere. Undergraduates studying The Wasteland and not understanding any of its references are very likely to go out into literature seeking those references and learning a good deal in the process. It matters not that they don't understand. They feel the might of the poetry; they are in awe; they have new desire for learning stirred within. Shakespeare is the same. Some students will pass over Shakespeare with no awakened interest. But some, even though they miss every joke and some scenes baffle them, they are hearing with virgin ears the timeless sound of the bard. It matters not that they miss the whole point of the play. To have been confounded by Shakespeare is a valuable experience, and if for a second they sense the mysterious working of his genius it may be the seed of a lasting interest in literature.
The teaching of Shakespeare at present is very weak. Teachers are worried that students will be put off by Shakespeare so they try to make him into an unthreatening and acceptable caricature. I doubt if any boy ever discovered a love for Hamlet by reading "No Fear Shakespeare". Teachers ought to teach the terrible and frightening Shakespeare, the hard Shakespeare. At least then students might learn how to be reverent.
>>7379027
>same pronunciation
you're a fucking idiot if you think this
>>7377290
Yes. Your laziness and stupidity shouldn't bring down the aesthetic and intellectual experience of those aren't lazy and stupid. If you want to see something that doesn't require effort to understand, go watch a broadway musical. You have to think about Shakespeare.
I don't mind a modern artist plagiarizing Shakespeare for a modern audience, if that's what you mean.
But if you mean a committee of scholars trying to preserve the meaning while translating into 'idiomatic' English, and then saying that this is 'faithful' to the original meaning, then I absolutely disagree and think you should fuck off
>>7379079
first time I post.
I'm taco speaker, are translations good enough for me?
>>7379065
I meant to say that the pronunciation of those two version of the same speech should be the same if that wasn't clear. Of course, that pronunciation is different from what we use today.
>>7379082
Yes. Shakespeare in Spanish (I'm assuming that's what you mean by 'taco') is still fine literature.
>>7379057
Really? In my own high school class, we read the No Fear Shakespeare edition of Hamlet, each student taking one part and reading it out loud, and they were very interested.
>>7377242
You sound absolutely insufferable.
>>7379209
Read out loud the left or right page?
>>7379201
yes, spanish.
are there any writters at the same level than shakespeare?
>>7379249
That is, by definition, subjective.
>>7379244
The right page.
>>7379262
we're talking about technique though.
that's not subjective you know.
>>7379262
sorry, I meant writers in spanish.
>>7379276
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'technique' here, but I'm pretty sure that every definition of 'technique' I've heard of, applied to writing, is subjective.
>>7379201
Bullshit. I mean, sure, the psychological insight in the plotlines and the use of metaphor/imagery can be captured in a translation, but the best part of shakespeare is the vocabulary he uses. Where else are you going to find
>And thus the native hue of resolution
>Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
>And enterprise of great pitch and moment
>With this regard their currents turn awry
>And lose the name of action
No. With a little effort you can read and watch Shakespeare fine. I disagree with even translating Chaucer.
>>7379286
>figures of speech
>rythm (odd vs non odd phrases)
>quality of figures
>poethry metrics
>how long or complex are the phrases
>character development
>diferent styles of writing that depends on character bio
>repetition
>use of arcs and general structure like the hero's journey
>use of archetypes and tropes
>use of stuff like the 36 plots
>use of character personalities tropes
>use of grammar and complex grammar
>complexity of the tropes
>mirror subplots
>non use of pink prose
hardly subjective.
those are the first that come to my mind.
I'm sorry you don't know the rules of writing, so you use the subjective quality like a retard.
Shakespeare's language is half the reason I enjoy reading him
>>7379293
How old does something have to be before it needs to be translated? Should we translate Beowulf?
>>7379297
Those things in themselves may be fairly objective, but how much and what kind of them makes *good* writing is the subjective bit.
>>7379368
Yes, if you ever saw Beowulf you saw it translated. It's English is more similar to German than to modern English.
>>7379374
more == better
what's so subjective about?
do you seriously think your average rap or justin bieber is a good technically as bach or mozart?
>>7379375
Do you think knowing modern English and German would be enough to read Beowulf?
>>7377242
>16th illiterate peasants were the intended audience
>they had no trouble with Billy Shakes
>modern students with a far better education and grasp of the english language
>need a heavily annotated scholarly edition
>>7379380
Well, personally, I think that 'good writing' by definition is subjective. There may be some people who enjoy writing employing such devices more, and there may be some people who enjoy it less, especially if it employs them excessively. But isn't the ultimate metric enjoyment?
>>7379395
The English language has shifted a good bit since then. A lot of the basic words have changed meaning. For example, as I mentioned above, 'to character' meant 'to write', 'chief' could mean 'a class or level of something', etc.
>>7379399
>I'm talking about technique
>but isn't the ultimate metric enjoyment
full retard
kill yourself.
>>7379404
Literally could be figured out with context clues or a minor footnote. If this is a true obstacle for anyone they shouldn't be reading at all.
>>7379391
Maybe enough to sort of get the general gist. Although Dutch or Frisian might help a little more than German.
>>7379410
I dare you to say in all honesty that you figured out by context that "look thou character" means "see to it that you write it". And if you have to have a footnote, that's missing the pointー Shakespeare wrote for the stage, not the page.
>>7379415
Fair enough. However a dictionary is also handy and contains this archaic definition. If you lack the mental ability to memorize so few words and their meaning (or you think the audience lacks this ability) you should not call yourself a reader And it would be further missing the point on both our accounts as even when the dialogue was more intelligent the peasants could still follow along.
If you could not figure out the gist of what Polonius is saying you in that dialogue especially with all of Act 1 around it even if you did not exactly understand a part "character" you understand what he means on the whole and it really does not impede understanding without footnote or if context wasn't enough.
>>7379445
It's not a matter of 'a few words'ー hundreds of basic words have changed meaning since then.
>>7379456
A minor hundreds of the 30k unique words used by him will make us all idiots? All those hundred as buried in deep obscurity that one can't figure out the meaning by context or would stop them from understanding the scene as a whole?
>>7379467
http://acepilots.com/bard/ws_word_a.html
Literally every letter only contains a handful of words.
C which seems to have the largest is only about 30 or so words
>>7379479
Still seems to average around ten to a dozen each, which multiplied by 26 letters would be from 260 to 312. And some of them are fairly common words. But perhaps more importantly, changed words carry not just the risk of incomprehension but of *mis*comprehension.
>>7379368
It's not about age; it's about readability. Chaucer, when read with a glossary, isn't hard at all too read--Old English is practically another language.
>>7379501
Low 200s actually with a large amount of them being not that different at all and some even still used in a semi-modern way
>advocation/plea; advocacy
>approve/prove, confirm
>attend/await, wait upon
>cunning/well-qualified, skillful; (but usually with modern undertones of craftiness)
this one is accidentally more modern than how it was used even
>deal of/quantity of, greatness of, superiority of
>dread, dreadful/terror, fear, awe or reverential or respectful fear; awe
and so on
There are only a small few words that are used so infrequently and so modernly obscure as to cause any misunderstanding or incomprehension or miscomprehension which was a risk then (lower classes watching) as much as it is now.
Why do you not want to put forth the tiniest amount of effort?
>>7379009
His verse style is really 90% of why he's in the canon at all, so reading him in translation is probably not going to deliver any real value.
>>7377242
bh senpai, dis b8?
>>7379411
You're mistaken. Maybe for OE prose you could guess at like 60%, but OE poetry uses a lot of specialized vocabulary and constantly jumbles up the sentence for metrical purposes. You need to study a bit to be able to read it with anything approaching ease.
>>7379554
Those words are used all the time with those meaninings these days, you need to get out more.
Are you fucking retarded, oh wait this is a bait thread
Saged
>>7379614
Hence why I said *sort of* get the *general* gistー you'd be able to get that now they're sailing, now the guy killed something probably, now the king's talking about war, etc.
>>7379626
That's the pointー they're examples of them being used in a modern or semi-modern way.
>>7379599
Can personally attest otherwise; have read Hamlet in Esperanto translation and found it quite an enjoyable read. (Helps that it was translated by Zamenhof, who was a fairly capable writer himself.)
>>7379644
That's because you're a fucking pleb.
>>7377242
Shakespeare isn't difficult to read because he's archaic. Shakespeare is difficult because his language and syntax is brilliantly complex. His contemporaries did not find Shakespeare's language easy-going.
>a thread died for this
>>7379649
What does that word even mean anymore? Are Esperanto speakers in general 'plebs' by your definition?
>>7379626
Are you the guy claiming Billy Shakes is too hard for the modern audience to comprehend? I mean I suppose why this might be for you but it seems to be a general problem.
>>7379664
He may not have been easy to understand even then, but the archaic nature of his language cannot be ignored as a factor.
>>7379672
No, that guy isn't me.
>>7379671
Fuck off, pleb.
>>7379681
Oh then you might also need to work on your reading comprehension or at the very least read the fucking thread.
>>7379694
No, I mean I'm the guy who started the thread, the guy you were asking wasn't me.
John McWhorter wrote a couple pieces on this subject (some overlap):
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-facelift-for-shakespeare-1443194924
http://www.tcg.org/publications/at/jan10/shakespeare.cfm
I encourage you all to at least read them and hear his arguments.
>>7379716
Fuck off
>>7379716
>John McWhorter
https://www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk?language=en
>>7379723
And what's so awful about that talk? Seems sensible enough to me.
>>7379760
>Ted talk
>seems reasonable to me
The important thing is that you tried.
>>7379774
Eh? I don't get it, what's the issue? Are you saying TED talks are uniformly rubbish?
>>7379776
>TED talks are uniformly rubbish?
Si, senora
>>7379774
Are you judging the content of the talk solely because of the platform it's on? How dumb are you?
People don't praise Shakespeare enough for his comedic writing. Dude is snarky as fug
>>7379783
First, that's misspelled, it should be a ñ rather than an n, and second, I'm a señor, not a señora.
>>7379788
Back to a Reddit.
>>7379808
Are you seriously suggesting that judging things based on the merit of their arguments rather than what they're published through is a concept exclusive to reddit?
>>7377242
We don't have to choose between one or the other. Thank you capitalism.
>>7379808
I'm convinced that you're underaged and the reason you hate TED talks, and thus the academic for utilizing the platform, is because it typically allows people with an opposing ideology to your own to express their views. In other words, you have a puerile and emotional reason to repudiate someone whose ideas you've never read or heard.
I can tell that you're not from /lit/. Please leave.
>>7379822
>thank you capitalism
If anything, the fact that Shakespeare is becoming more inaccessible for each generation might be a valid argument for the oppsition to the "evolution of language". There is a certain group of people who became terribly upset when you suggest that retaining the original meaning of a word might be desirable rather than allowing "evolution" to take its course (case in point, the use of literally figuratively).
>>7379822
Trueー both can coexist. The same theater company might put on both, for that matterー if I recall correctly, the place where they were performing the translations as mentioned in McWhorter's article was doing exactly that.
>>7379847
I don't think you can really stop language from evolving. People have tried.
>>7379855
Of course, one cannot deny the inevitability of language evolving. But in recent time, there appears to be an extremely progressive attitude in regards to accepting the misuse of words and attributing it to "evolution". Suggesting that the word literally ought to retain its original meaning, instead of being synonymous with figuratively, might be met with scorn and insults such as "troglodyte" aimed at you.
>>7379827
It's nothing but pop-sci now, which is extremely reddit.
>>7379644
How true to the original do you really think it was? Can you post some excerpts?
>>7380250
It seemed pretty true to the original, having read both the original with footnotes and the No Fear Shakespeare edition. I note that it keeps to the original iambic pentameter, including observing where the iambic pentameter was violatedー for example, the 'to be or not to be' speech is in iambic pentameter plus an extra syllable at the end of each line, and the Esperanto translation is faithful to that. As for excerpts, I can do that, although I don't know what good it'll do since as far as I know I'm the only person here who speaks Esperanto. Here's the famous 'to be or not to be' monologue:
Ĉu esti aŭ ne esti,—tiel staras Nun la demando: ĉu pli noble estas Elporti ĉiujn batojn, ĉiujn sagojn De la kolera sorto, aŭ sin armi Kontraŭ la tuta maro da mizeroj Kaj per la kontraŭstaro ilin fini? Formorti—dormi, kaj nenio plu! Kaj scii, ke la dormo tute finis Doloron de la koro, la mil batojn, Heredon de la korpo,—tio estas Tre dezirinda celo. Morti—dormi— Trankvile dormi! Jes sed ankaŭ sonĝi! Jen estas la barilo! Kiaj sonĝoj Viziti povas nian mortan dormon Post la forĵeto de la teraj zorgoj,— Jen tio nin haltigas; tio faras, Ke la mizeroj teraj longe daŭras: Alie kiu volus elportadi La mokon kaj la batojn de la tempo, La premon de l’ potencaj, la ofendojn De la fieraj, falson de la juĝoj, Turmentojn de la amo rifuzita, La malestimon, kiun seninduloj Regalas al merito efektiva,— Jes, kiu volus tion ĉi elporti, Se mem, per unu puŝo de ponardo, Li povus sin de ĉio liberigi? Kaj kiu do en ŝvito kaj en ĝemoj La ŝarĝon de la vivo volus porti, Se ne la tim’ de io post la morto, De tiu nekonata land’, el kiu Neniu plu revenas. Kaj pro tio Plivolas ni elporti ĉion teran, Ol flugi al mizeroj nekonataj. La konscienco faras nin timuloj; Al la koloro hela de decido Aliĝas la paleco de l’ pensado; Kaj plej kuraĝa, forta entrepreno Per tiu kaŭzo haltas sendecide, Kaj ĉio restas penso, sed ne faro... Sed haltu! Ha, la ĉarma Ofelio... (Al Ofelio) Ho, nimfo, prenu ĉiujn miajn pekojn En vian puran preĝon!
>>7380596
(Continued) And here's the 'to thine own self be true' speech that Polonius gives to Laertes before he leaves:
Kaj memoru Regulojn, kiujn mi al vi instruis: Ne ĉian penson metu sur la langon, Ne donu tuj al ĉia penso faron. Afabla estu, sed ne tro kredema. Al la amiko saĝe elektita Kunforĝu vin en fera fideleco, Sed gardu vian manon de la premo De ĉiu renkontota bona frato. Vi gardu vin de ĉia malpaciĝo; Se vi ĝin ne evitos,—tiam agu Fortike, ke la malamik’ vin timu. Al ĉiu servu per orelo via, Sed ne al ĉiu servu per la buŝo. Konsilojn ĉiam prenu vi de ĉiu, Sed propran juĝon en la kapo tenu Laŭ via mon’ mezuru vian veston, Sed ĉio estu takta kaj konvena; Vin vestu bone, sed ne kiel dando: Laŭ vest’ ekkonas oni ofte viron, La homoj altastataj en Francujo En tiu punkto estas tre zorgemaj. Ne prenu prunte kaj ne prunte donu: Per pruntedono ofte oni perdas Krom sia havo ankaŭ la amikon, Kaj pruntepren’ kondukas al ruino De la mastraĵo. Antaŭ ĉio estu Fidela al vi mem,—de tio sekvos, Ke vi ne estos ankaŭ malfidela Al la aliaj homoj. Nun adiaŭ, Kaj mia beno vin akompanadu!
>>7377242
>because his language archaic enough to be rather difficult for a modern reader to understand without the aid of a dictionary
no it isnt you child
>>7380635
Do you seriously think that anyone today knows what a fardel is, unless they've read an annotated edition of Hamlet? Or for that matter that 'character' used to be a verb meaning 'to write'?
>>7380620
Also, a link to the Project Gutenberg addition:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37279/37279-h/37279-h.htm
>>7380646
Yes, not everyone is a fucking pleb.
>>7380673
I mean edition, oops.
>>7380687
Let's be honest, even a lot of basic words have changed meaning. That's the real difficultyー it's easy to see you don't know a word and look it up, it's harder to realize you've misunderstood something.
>>7380699
Not if you've studied Shakespeare, you have done that right?
You aren't some pleb, right?
>>7380958
I've read annotated editions of some of his plays, yes. I've seen some of his plays, yes. I haven't written dissertations on the symbolism or anything like that, if that's what you mean by 'studied', though.
>>7379209
Try making a class out of making fun of Shakespeare and talking about why he's silly and dated. I bet your class will get really involved in that one.
But class participation may not be indicative of successful education.
I shouldn't have picked on No Fear Shakespeare in particular, at least it gives side-by-side. But there's something a little sinister about assuring the student that a translation will convey the same sense. I also don't like that they translate metaphors into plain expressions.
Nor do I think they always translate the sense right. Look only momentarily into any NFS play and you'll find very soon some example of something that conveys the wrong tone or even the wrong meaning. Immediately on opening Antony and Cleopatra I see:
CAESAR: For Antony, / I have no ears to his request.
NFS: As for Antony, I’m not interested in his requests.
This forces an interpretation which the first doesn't. Caesar's interest is not in question. In the high office of Caesar he cannot give ear to such requests. NFS makes Caesar into a brute. Shakespeare's play does not.
>>7380976
Pleb
don't read shakespeare if you can't understand it? you obviously don't care enough to read it, even reading Middle English is still doable, and really enjoyable.
>>7379263
Gay
>>7379374
this is such a freshman low-level english class insight
>>7379391
German speaking English student, I mean yeah you can pull a few words out here and there pretty easily if you're fluent in German and have read a fair amount of Middle English verse, but even then there's so much Dutch seeing as though it comes out of a story of the Danes that had overtaken France, Wales and England. Honestly if you're trying to read Beowulf in Old English you need to pretty much be a PhD from Trinity, tons of words are still very contentious, i.e. the words describing Grendel sometimes call him a beast but other times a spirit-like ghoul.
Theatre BFA here. If performed well, Shakespeare is INCREDIBLY easy to follow, dick jokes and all.
>>7379820
No, I'm saying that thinking that TED talks are so bad that they can be collectively dismissed is Reddit.
>>7381204
A few undergraduate classes is all you need to read Beowulf. First class to study the language, second to tackle the Beowulf poem. Source: I studied it and translated like 1000 lines (out of about 3000.) The editions all have editorial notes on problem passages.
>>7381152
>CAESAR: For Antony, / I have no ears to his request.
>NFS: As for Antony, I’m not interested in his requests.
That's pretty bad.
>>7381505
You can understand Esperanto?
Why the fuck do people read Shakespeare? Shakespeare wrote plays, plays are meant to be seen, not read. At least read along with an audio, or else you're really missing the full experience of Shakespeare.
By the way, I have a question: Do y'all think that foreigners who go to see Shakespeare performed in their own language are just wasting their time, since Shakespeare in translation isn't really Shakespeare?
