shakespear fakespeare?

I quite disagree with Khanrer. Recently I was fortunate enought to be in the UK and heard a performance of two of Shakespeares play in the Idiom of the times. True it was not Old English, but it definitely was spoken differently than todays english. I got a lot more out of it by listening and finally understood some of the meanings that I always thought of as boring. I never realized how refreshing it was to hear it as the people really spoke it. As an example, a very poor one mind you, listen to very old movies that were made in 1920's and you will hear phrases and pronunciations that today's youth just cannot understand. Also the meanings for slang words are much different than today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald B

I quite disagree with Khanrer. Recently I was fortunate enought to be in the UK and heard a performance of two of Shakespeares play in the Idiom of the times. True it was not Old English, but it definitely was spoken differently than todays english. I got a lot more out of it by listening and finally understood some of the meanings that I always thought of as boring. I never realized how refreshing it was to hear it as the people really spoke it. As an example, a very poor one mind you, listen to very old movies that were made in 1920's and you will hear phrases and pronunciations that today's youth just cannot understand. Also the meanings for slang words are much different than today.

---

Yes, a lot of words were different. It is still, however, 'modern english'. As in, after, 'old english' and 'middle english', not as in 'english as it is spoken today'. Language has always been mobile, new words get added and old ones fall out of use, but 'modern english' has been around since at least the 1400s!
I live in the UK and have seen several of the plays performed in the original language - you have to bear in mind that that is what they were designed for, to be seen, not read. Of course there will be more clarity. There is, however, no guarantee that it is spoken as it would have been in the 15/1600s, as pronunciation also changes, although it's still the same language.

:lol: You see that, Lisa? That's me laughing at you. Shakespere wrote R & J, AMSND, and many others. Clearly he's not "copying" because HE WROTE THEM! Also, he wrote in Elizabethan English. It was the precursor to Modern English. Elizabethan English is pretty much Modern English squished with Old English. As in "Go to thou bedroom, Romeo" As I said. Somebody's an idiot!

oh my god......oh my god.....i just absolutely cannot believe that you didn't know that in actual fact.. William Shakespeare WROTE Romeo and Juliet....GGRRRRRR....so how can he copy HIS OWN BRILLIANT WORK!!!!!

eeeeeek..that was sooooo stupid little gurl...u need to do serious homework...

~sigh~

I imagine that years from now, the language we speak shall be known as "Post-Modern English," if it is called "English" at all.

I'm trying to work out if this thread is a spoof or not.

Unfortunately, I think that's a 'no.'

Lisa, get some quality education!
Lisa, how old are you? Bcos im only 12 yrs old and i already know the fundamental fact that Shakespeare NEVER has copied in the course of history. Your statement is just like saying that J.K Rowling is a copier of texts bcos in the book, HArry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the name " Cho Chang" was copied from HArry Potter and the Goblet of Fire!

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasnt the original poster referring to the fact that Pyramus and Thisbe (written by someone other than Shakespeare way before Shakespeares time) has a similar ending to Romeo and Juliet? Thus saying that Shakespeare has copied (to some extent) the tragedy of Pyramus and Thisbe in his play of Romeo and Juliet? Confusing to start with, but I think that's the just of what they were saying, not that he had copied Romeo and Juliet in A Midsummer Night's Dream of Pyramus and Thisbe. I'm sure they knew who wrote Romeo and Juliet! That's what I understood by the post anyway.

Let's be honest, all the great writers of all languages, genres, and times have taken the ideas of one or several others and fused them together to create something even more rich with originality. It was original because no one had thought to put it together in such a way. Though, I do find it completely true that most of Shakespeare's plays were based on others' works. Mary Shelly did the same thing. All great writers get their influence from somewhere. They have to, else they wouldn't be writing. The real thing that should be looked into is who really wrote his plays and sonnets. Was it him? Many believe otherwise and who is to say he did?

i wonder, instead of shouting at this girl to get an education, would you take the time to note that she probably meant 'Elizabethian English' & not 'Middle/Anglo Saxon English' when she said 'old english'

The 'First Folio' was published by Shakespeare's colleagues John Heminges and Henry Condell in 1623 about seven years after Shakespeare's death (well into James I's reign btw). Spoken english at that time wouldn't be largely different than how we speak now though the spelling would be, say this passage from Henry V aloud & i'm sure your brain will make the corrections for you...

And tell the pleasant Prince, this Mocke of his
Hath turn'd his balles to Gun-stones, and his soule
Shall stand sore charged, for the wastefull vengeance
That shall flye with them: for many a thousand widows
Shall this his Mocke, mocke out of their deer husbands;
Mocke mothers from their sonnes, mock Castles downe:
And some are yet vngotten and vnborne,
That shal haue cause to curse the Dolphins scorne.
But this lyes all within the wil of God

if not:

And tell the pleasant prince, this mock of his hath turned
his balls to gun-stones, and his soul shall stand sore charged
for the wasteful vengeance that shall fly with them: for many
a thousand widows shall this his mock, mock out of their dear
husbands, mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down,
and some are yet ungotten and unborn that shall have cause
to curse the Dauphins scorn! But this lies all within the will of God

Shakespeare was art for goodness sakes! if this girl is being annoying just to irritate people then more shame on her, if not, then she's an unfortunate fool who deserves pity not anger surely?? :(