|
It's definitely important to the story that she's attractive...
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
I'm the clearly Irish tourist
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 13:33
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Shakespeare's texts aren't in English though, for any reasonable definition of English. A native speaker of English can't reliably read Shakespeare without help, for any reasonable definition of read. what the heck Shakespeare's perfectly readable. It's early modern English and really isn't hard to read assuming you're literate. You might not get the jokes, sure, but it's not Chaucer or such where you'll barely have a clue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Grammatically it's mostly understandable but there's a poo poo-ton of vocabulary and turns of phrase that have either fallen out of use hundreds of years ago or, in many cases, mean something different than they do today. If you have a normal native speaker of English read Shakespeare today without annotations, they will fully understand about 20%*. Not only do they not get the jokes (which is really bad if it's a comedy) but they'll not get a sense of why some characters do what they do because the dialogue doesn't fully make sense to them. That's why normal people generally hate Shakespeare on the stage because theatre isn't annotated. To put it in goon terms it's like watching anime with a lovely fan sub. *) This is a highly scientific number I pulled out of my rear end but I stand behind it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
You’re completely loving wrong. Shakespeare is still modern English. Like Quote-Unquote said, you don’t even have to deal with a vowel shift or anything. Shakespeare’s grammar and diction are extraordinarily clear and consistent, and anything not immediately understandable can largely be figured out by context. He is crucial to the evolution of English literature and culture and demands studying for that alone. I know you’re not a native English speaker Jerry, so shut up about poo poo you categorically don’t understand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You’re completely loving wrong. Shakespeare is still modern English. Like Quote-Unquote said, you don’t even have to deal with a vowel shift or anything. Shakespeare’s grammar and diction are extraordinarily clear and consistent, and anything not immediately understandable can largely be figured out by context. He is crucial to the evolution of English literature and culture and demands studying for that alone. I sayeth, forsooth chill out my dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
I'll buy plat/archives/whatever that certificate is for the first one of you fuckers* who can show me the regular guy who can paraphrase just the first five lines in Julius Caesar without help. Which they can't because mechanical there is used in a way that is completely foreign to modern English-speakers. (But you can't tell them that because it would be cheating.) *) Obviously the effort required would be far greater than 8.54€ or whatever they cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:I'll buy plat/archives/whatever that certificate is for the first one of you fuckers* who can show me the regular guy who can paraphrase just the first five lines in Julius Caesar without help. Which they can't because mechanical there is used in a way that is completely foreign to modern English-speakers. (But you can't tell them that because it would be cheating.) quote:Hence! home, you idle creatures get you home: "Why are all these workers just wandering around instead of not working? It's not a holiday! You, what's your job?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
Peanut Butler posted:hahal what Sure, it's "more important" to English as an academic subject than it is to Drama. So what? When kids are getting run though it (in Britain at least) in their English classes, they're like 13-16 years old. Leaving aside all the people mistakenly going on about it being "old English" or whatever, it's fair to say that the sort of language used in Shakespeare is pretty loving useless as far as teaching teenagers how to read anything else they'll encounter in day to day life, let alone for teaching them to write comprehensible modern prose. Now, I agree Shakespeare should be taught in schools because it's massively culturally significant. And if we're not teaching it in English, we should teach it in Drama, because they're plays and they were meant to be performed. And it doesn't matter if there are other plays which were "more important" to drama as an art-form, because 13-16 year olds are not studying drama to learn about the historical development of theatre, they're studying it to give them a familiarity with it as a contributing factor in contemporary culture for which, guess what: Shakespeare is still p. drat relevant!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:I'll buy plat/archives/whatever that certificate is for the first one of you fuckers* who can show me the regular guy who can paraphrase just the first five lines in Julius Caesar without help. Which they can't because mechanical there is used in a way that is completely foreign to modern English-speakers. (But you can't tell them that because it would be cheating.) [addressing a group of workers] What's going on with you lazy people? Is today a holiday or something? You should be doing your jobs! [speaking to an individual person] What do you do for a living? e: beaten, badly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:I'll buy plat/archives/whatever that certificate is for the first one of you fuckers* who can show me the regular guy who can paraphrase just the first five lines in Julius Caesar without help. Which they can't because mechanical there is used in a way that is completely foreign to modern English-speakers. (But you can't tell them that because it would be cheating.) Oh my god just shut the gently caress up. Flavius’ lines there repeat their meaning twice, and the gist of workers not working is easily understood. Contemporary English may not use mechanical the same way, but it does use trade as Shakespeare does there. Seriously you are making an utter goddamn fool out of yourself. It’s obvious you haven’t spent any time or attention reading English literature as a field and that you have no understanding of Shakespeare’s place within it. That’s fine, but stop making GBS threads up the thread insisting it’s wrong if you don’t understand the reasons why Shakespeare is taught in the discipline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
The_White_Crane posted:Sure, it's "more important" to English as an academic subject than it is to Drama. It's not just "massively culturally significant", Shakespeare was massively important in the development of English . This cannot possibly be stated enough. There is probably not a day in your life that you haven't used a word or phrase that he coined. Quote-Unquote has a new favorite as of 14:39 on Jul 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:"Why are all these workers just wandering around instead of not working? It's not a holiday! You, what's your job?" Actually you do bring up a good point in that a normal person would just completely gloss over anything they don't immediately get, whereas a student gets stuck on all the little poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
Other than the archaic use of "mechanical" to mean a manual labourer, there's nothing in those five lines that a native English speaker shouldn't be able to understand almost immediately. this is really off-topic so I'll shut up now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Actually you do bring up a good point in that a normal person would just completely gloss over anything they don't immediately get, whereas a student gets stuck on all the little poo poo. Students are learning. That’s why you give them challenging material so that they improve their understanding of the subject. Shakespeare is good for this because he is so crucially important to English, is largely easily digestible and yet does contain notable differences from contemporary literature in both form and language.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Actually you do bring up a good point in that a normal person would just completely gloss over anything they don't immediately get, whereas a student gets stuck on all the little poo poo. This is especially true when they're performed and not read, because you can get context clues from the action on stage, the actors emoting, tone, etc. The plays make far more sense, not less, when performed vs read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:This is especially true when they're performed and not read, because you can get context clues from the action on stage, the actors emoting, tone, etc. The plays make far more sense, not less, when performed vs read. Yeah, performing the plays is vital to understanding them. Really we should stop having students just read the plays in English and have them start the lesson with either seeing a live performance or watching an adaptation of it. I was in three Shakespeare plays in high school and watched three others. Even for a 16-year-old, they're extremely understandable when you actually perform them and the school theatre was absolutely packed for every performance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
poo poo that didn't happen: Goons having a civil discussion about Shakespeare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:It's not just "massively culturally significant", Shakespeare was massively important in the development of English . This cannot possibly be stated enough. There is probably not a day in your life that you haven't used a word or phrase that he coined. Doing some looking, Shakespeare is credited with introducing at least 422 words and phrases to the English language (or at least being the first to write them down) through compounds, foreign loanwords, and turning nouns into verbs. This includes "anchovy", "addiction", "distasteful", "fixture", and  The English language wasn't very expansive in his time and Shakespeare was a literary genius familiar with most of the language. He invented words by manipulating the languages that already existed to expand the poetic nature of his dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:I'll buy plat/archives/whatever that certificate is for the first one of you fuckers* who can show me the regular guy who can paraphrase just the first five lines in Julius Caesar without help. Which they can't because mechanical there is used in a way that is completely foreign to modern English-speakers. (But you can't tell them that because it would be cheating.) A class of high school students immediately figured out the context of the word when I was in high school. Nobody was confused, and outside of not always properly reading the cadence or getting some of the jokes, shakespeare is very, very easily understood by high school students of very average levels of ability. You're picking a weird hill to die on, seemingly based on your own struggles with the language.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
I'd rather my kids read Shakespeare's entire body of work than fuckin' As I Lay Dying. Faulkner, you cheating son of a bitch...
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
For gently caress's sake. Here, at least have a Shakespeare related STDH:quote:I went to see hamlet and the guy playing hamlet was rather cute and had a lot of shirtless scenes going on and so I stared at him and tried to make eye contact until he caught my eye and I wiggled my eyebrow and he broke character and smiled and after that I would catch him glancing my way and after the play was over he came into the lobby and pulled me into his dressing room and that is how I lost my virginity to someone with his own Wikipedia page
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Let's see if this works...Lottery of Babylon posted:A girl in her mid-teens is pretty much an adult already. Going to parties and clubs and having a boyfriend, perhaps with a car and a flat and a mortgage. Taking holidays together. And she can have children if she wants or not. She has complete adult freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:For gently caress's sake. Here, at least have a Shakespeare related STDH: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:It's not just "massively culturally significant", Shakespeare was massively important in the development of English . This cannot possibly be stated enough. There is probably not a day in your life that you haven't used a word or phrase that he coined. Sure, I get that. I just think that at the sort of age I discussed, Shakespeare's contribution to the historical development of English isn't actually a useful thing to be teaching children. By all means, have it later in the curriculum, once English is an optional subject and the students who take it are interested in such things, but including it in the mandatory section of English education seems like a low priority to me when so many students come out of school barely able to form a coherent sentence or to read aloud without having to hesitate. I think at that stage we should instead be teaching them something which will more directly improve their ability to use English in their adult lives.  Edit: Look, I guess what I'm saying is that from my observations, at least half the people who come out of our education system are uncertain on the use of any punctuation mark other than a comma or a full stop, and a lot of them are pretty damned shaky on the comma. I'd rather see our English classes focus on fixing that sort of thing than teaching them that Shakespeare coined the word "barefaced". The_White_Crane has a new favorite as of 21:29 on Jul 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Are you talking about teaching Shakespeare to ESL students or native speakers, because that makes a pretty big difference imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Shakespeare was interesting when I was in high school from a composition point of view. We discussed speech rhythms and meter which was pretty cool. Also, English was mandatory until university.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
The_White_Crane posted:Edit: Look, I guess what I'm saying is that from my observations, at least half the people who come out of our education system are uncertain on the use of any punctuation mark other than a comma or a full stop, and a lot of them are pretty damned shaky on the comma. I'd rather see our English classes focus on fixing that sort of thing than teaching them that Shakespeare coined the word "barefaced". The thing is, I think Shakespeare helps people learn, understand, read, write, and speak English. If they can be taught to read and understand Shakespeare, then they can certainly do just fine in a standard English class. Even those words and phrases Willy coined are largely still in use today. I’m not saying one is objectively smarter for having read and understood any of Shakespeare’s work—I’m just saying that it seems clear to me that a person who can’t seem to grasp homophones, contractions, and Oxford commas, probably didn’t read and/or understand Shakespeare (or is exceedingly lazy and wants to appear dumb). Basically I think if you give a poo poo about understanding Shakespeare, or at least are capable of it, you’re probably more likely to use Oxford commas and other such punctuation marks correctly. I also think you’re more likely to have a good grasp of English. Shakespeare is certainly more useful to learn than Malory or Chaucer—it’s almost like an advanced form of English, and learning an older, more difficult (but still intelligible) form of English is arguably pretty important to understanding its current form.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Yeah, performing the plays is vital to understanding them. Really we should stop having students just read the plays in English and have them start the lesson with either seeing a live performance or watching an adaptation of it. Yeah, I think the problem isn't just whether or not kids can understand all the jokes and turns of phrase, or how much it helps your grasp on English, it's that they suck to read. There's generally missing context, and parts won't play right at all without cue scripts. Maybe reading it will help with English, but it isn't doing the material itself any justice. And I don't get what we're arguing about anyway, it's not like you won't be reading it as well if you're in a drama class. Like, you'll do all the same poo poo as you do in English with it, just with more context and acting it out and really getting it as a play and not just something read. No one is saying never teach Shakespeare, they're saying do it in a way that makes sense. At least make them teach them as plays properly in English class. And no, kids aren't going to comprehend all the context and jokes. I'm working with a professional Shakespeare company, and even they have to do research, or ask one another what's going on in a scene/what exactly is being said and to whom. It's not always obvious, and you can miss pretty important poo poo easily.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
I think Shakespeare is valuable for English if you teach the kids how he formed the words. Shakespeare wasn't "inventing words" in the sense that he was just making up random poo poo. He was using foreign loanwords or turning nouns into verbs and making compound words. It's believed that he invented the word "assassination" as a derivative of "assassin", for instance. He had an extremely thorough grasp on the building blocks of the language to the point where he could manipulate it to create new terms that were easily understandable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Dude's a fraud anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
Yeah William Shakespeare didn't write any of those plays, it was someone else with the same name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
This discussion me think of this pearl
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
poo poo that didn't happen: covering an entire shakespeare play in mine Englishe classe. Why? Because the words were written to be performed, not read at first glance by teenagers hundreds of years later. Sheesh. If students are interested, I'll run a book club for them. Otherwise, there's other, more engaging ways to teach english.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
DavidAlltheTime posted:poo poo that didn't happen: covering an entire shakespeare play in mine Englishe classe. It's incredibly important that the students don't enjoy anything they're forced to read and thus grow up thinking reading is awful and bad. That was the way I was taught in school and it should remain that way drat it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
*twenty page derail on how we should, actually, be teaching Proust to 3 year olds*
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
My highschool handed out a version of Macbeth with one page with the original prose, the other in plain English. You got really sick of that play after a term reading it, hearing it on tape, watching the Polanski film and seeing extracts in live performances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
CROWS EVERYWHERE posted:*twenty page derail on how we should, actually, be teaching Proust to 3 year olds* lol if you don't have Enriquito read Proust for your 3-year-old
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 03:56
|
|
