If Shakespeare rose from the dead tomorrow, would we be able to understand him?
Would we understand Shakespeare?
Likely, we would be able to more than get the gist of what he said but he'd be totally confused at what we said.
I would imagine that Shakespeare spoke with a thick midlands country accent. If you can understand modern English country accents, you could probably understand him.
If Will, the Bard of Avon, miraculously resurrected himself into 21st century Britain he would indeed be able to make himself understood to a degree, but with more than a wee bit of difficulty.
He would have a very rustic, very rhotic accent, reflecting that of the remote, very rural Warwickshire (central England) of the 16th century.
His phraseology would be quite alien to the inhabitants of present day Stratford-upon-Avon, but with some patience on both sides I reckon old (very old) Will would just about be able to procure directions from some hapless passer-by to his local tavern which, with a bit of luck, would still be there, but no doubt totally unrecognisable to him now!
He would have a very rustic, very rhotic accent, reflecting that of the remote, very rural Warwickshire (central England) of the 16th century.
His phraseology would be quite alien to the inhabitants of present day Stratford-upon-Avon, but with some patience on both sides I reckon old (very old) Will would just about be able to procure directions from some hapless passer-by to his local tavern which, with a bit of luck, would still be there, but no doubt totally unrecognisable to him now!
My understanding of the development of English is that his dialect would be mutually intelligible, albeit with some difficulty. And an American would understand him better than an Australian and an Australian would understand him better than someone from England.
Although his native accent was probably more Midlands than anything else, he spent much time in London and was familiar with Queen Elizabeth I and James VI (James I of England :-P) so he knew the RP of the time, which was probably a lot like Scots today.
Although his native accent was probably more Midlands than anything else, he spent much time in London and was familiar with Queen Elizabeth I and James VI (James I of England :-P) so he knew the RP of the time, which was probably a lot like Scots today.
People already have considerable difficultly understanding his written works.
I don't know if it is true that many people have a hard time understanding his written works. I started reading him in middle school and managed well and have since seen many film interpritations as well as live performances of his plays. People interpret it differently, that is true. And you also have to take into consideration that the written word, especially older works of English Lit, do not necessarily represent the spoken form. I'm almost certain that he didn't walk around speaking in iambic pentameter all the time. I think that would be ghastly no matter what century one was from. I think it would be interesting to know if there are any non-native speakers who have attempted to read Shakespeare in its original form, and to know how well they did at penetrating the work. Of course there are experts who do it all the time. I’m interested in how accessible it is to the non-native speaker.
I started reading Shakespear in middle school also (5th grade), since for some strange reason, people feel the need to force his work on children. Nobody really understood it well, getting only a general idea of what was going on and missing most of the details. When reading in class, our teacher had to walk us through alot of it, often sentence by sentence explanation, making sure we weren't totally lost.
Books with his works are usually HEAVILY annotated to ensure that the reader is following. Without annotation, or guidance from an instructor with specific knowledge, its not very intelligible to modern english speakers. The syntax, morphology (inflection), and obsure vocabulary that doesn't exist in modern english, make it dramatically different.
Often times you think you understand something, but you are TOTALLY mistaken, much like the famous line "Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?" - which is almost universally misunderstood.
However, we understood it perfectly when watching the plays after reading them, relying more on the acting cues than on the words...
Books with his works are usually HEAVILY annotated to ensure that the reader is following. Without annotation, or guidance from an instructor with specific knowledge, its not very intelligible to modern english speakers. The syntax, morphology (inflection), and obsure vocabulary that doesn't exist in modern english, make it dramatically different.
Often times you think you understand something, but you are TOTALLY mistaken, much like the famous line "Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?" - which is almost universally misunderstood.
However, we understood it perfectly when watching the plays after reading them, relying more on the acting cues than on the words...
Keep in mind, though, that his writing is much more flowery than he would have spoken.
Most unlikely for the mos part - you may, if you listened carefully enough and had even a slight knowledge of Mediaeval English (Old English) you may just about get a gist of what Geoffrey Chaucer was saying to you.
If you watch a very old black and white film, made in 1942 and set in very rural Kent (South East England) at that time during WW2, and called A Canterbury Tale, you would hear an actor's voice reciting from Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales" and speaking in the Language of Chaucer himself. As you know the tale is about the journey undertaken by pilgrims heading towards the shrine of St Thomas a Becket in Canterbury Cathedral, along the Pilgrim's Way (still in existence all the many hundreds of years later in places today along the South Downs way of Sussex and Kent, all these hundreds of years later).
The recitation is only barely recognisable as English for the most part, and you could say it bears a resemblance to the modern day Scandinavian Languages in some respects (especially with the enunciation) but such was the English of Chaucer's time in England (1343-1400). Remember, English at that time was only really in the middle to later stages of developing into the Language we all know and speak today.
Lovers of the English Language, both written and spoken, have much to be grateful for what Geoffrey Chaucer did all those centuries ago.
If you watch a very old black and white film, made in 1942 and set in very rural Kent (South East England) at that time during WW2, and called A Canterbury Tale, you would hear an actor's voice reciting from Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales" and speaking in the Language of Chaucer himself. As you know the tale is about the journey undertaken by pilgrims heading towards the shrine of St Thomas a Becket in Canterbury Cathedral, along the Pilgrim's Way (still in existence all the many hundreds of years later in places today along the South Downs way of Sussex and Kent, all these hundreds of years later).
The recitation is only barely recognisable as English for the most part, and you could say it bears a resemblance to the modern day Scandinavian Languages in some respects (especially with the enunciation) but such was the English of Chaucer's time in England (1343-1400). Remember, English at that time was only really in the middle to later stages of developing into the Language we all know and speak today.
Lovers of the English Language, both written and spoken, have much to be grateful for what Geoffrey Chaucer did all those centuries ago.
The film was made in 1944 and not 1942 but what the heck.....anyway, this was it:
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/438020/
Towards the end of the film you can see the tremendous devastation in and around the ancient city of Canterbury wrought by relentless enemy air raids on the city, but remarkably the ancient cathedral survived practically unscathed while all around was flattened and many ancient buildings destroyed. The same was true for St Paul's Cathedral in London, which brings to mind some kind of Divine intervention......
What a pity it didn't work at Coventry, but there you go......maybe God had a night off on Coventry's fateful night in November 1940.
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/438020/
Towards the end of the film you can see the tremendous devastation in and around the ancient city of Canterbury wrought by relentless enemy air raids on the city, but remarkably the ancient cathedral survived practically unscathed while all around was flattened and many ancient buildings destroyed. The same was true for St Paul's Cathedral in London, which brings to mind some kind of Divine intervention......
What a pity it didn't work at Coventry, but there you go......maybe God had a night off on Coventry's fateful night in November 1940.
<<Would we understand Chaucer? >>
Given that Chaucer's writing is usually almost unintelligible, I can only imagine that his speech would be completely unintelligible.
Given that Chaucer's writing is usually almost unintelligible, I can only imagine that his speech would be completely unintelligible.