That line’s in Khadaji’s post.
-FrL-
OOps, sorry… my first (hasty) read didn’t pick up the last line. My blushes.
Footnotes are not of much use in performance translations of drama–where a shift in register can be highly significant. Ibsen, in particular, has a way of becoming cutsie-poo.
In Britain, within living memory, “I don’t have indigestion” meant “I am not a dyspeptic”, whereas “I haven’t got indigestion” meant “I am not suffering from a stomachache at this moment.”
One of the many uses of the English language is to understand Shakespeare.
But to take a more specific instance, I don’t ever want to see the debasement of “infamous” result in the castration of FDR’s Pearl Harbor speech.
The earliest use of “infamous” I find in the OED is as follows:
"No man liti a lanterne in derknesse, and putti it in oon of es two infamous places: neer in hid place ne undir a bushel. "
That’s from Wycliffe somewheres. (It doesn’t look like a translation of the bible verse but an allusion to it, so I guess its not from his Bible. What else he wrote, I don’t know.)
This looks to me like the less charged use of “infamous.” The more charged use you mention doesn’t happen (in the OED) until 1539. Do you take this fact to be relevant to evaluation of your argument?*
I’m really not seeing your argument here. In performance, it would be easily possible to produce the effect of using a familiar form, whether the language performed in has a familiar form or not.
I grant the translator of the work will have some “difficulty” in finding the right text to support such a performance, but this is no more difficulty than that which goes into translation in general. This is no more than the difficulty encountered when a word-for-word translation doesn’t do the original justice; in other words, its no more than the difficulty that comes from trying to translate something in the first place.
I’ve tricked you. 
(Just kidding.)
By asking you to explain the difference, I’ve caused you to demonstrate for yourself the fact that contemporary American english is just as useful in this regard as the Britishism you’ve described.
In fact, I disagree. We can use our understanding of contemporary English in order to try to understand Shakespeare’s English, but this is not a central, standard way of using contemporary English.
Similarly, I can use a hammer to create a circular dent in plywood (I have used it for just this purpose) and this is clearly not a completely marginal or strange way to use a hammer–but it’s not a central, standard case of the activity of “using a hammer.” Its not what a hammer is supposed to be for.
-FrL-
*I think but am not sure that the OED’s earliest cite of a word is the same as, or near-contemperaneous with, the earliest use of the word.
[Martin Short]* Oh, Dusty. In-famous is when you’re MORE than famous. This man El Guapo, he’s not just famous, he’s IN-famous! * [/MS]
Yes, I am perfectly aware that many words have changed their meanings since Wycliffe’s time.
Yes, I am perfectly aware that, with sufficient paraphrasing, nearly anything can be translated from one language to another.
None of that changes the fact that when people use language like slobs, they do real harm. They make anything written more than a year ago harder to understand, until, finally, meaning sails over the edge of the earth altogether. That this happens naturally is not an excuse to cultivate or encourage it. Every time you misuse a word, you are making it just a little bit harder for some book to be understood.
Moreover, the casual use of strong words to convey weak meanings is simply vulgar. It is the current coin of tabloid journalism.
This place is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, not encouraging it.
I agree with you here, but this is not the point you have been making. Rather, you’ve been arguing that it is incorrect to use “infamous” to mean anything less than “seriously nasty and utterly reprehensible,” and you’ve been arguing that particular instances of language change led to a loss of usefulness in that language. You have not succeeded in demonstrating either of these points, however, and introducing your new point about slovenly use of language does nothing to help your efforts.
:dubious:
-FrL-
Interesting that you cite ‘awful’ as having its meaning “ruined”. It reminds me of the famous (but not infamous) comment by Queen Anne about the reconstruction of St Paul’s Cathdral by Christopher Wren. She characterized the work as “awful, artificial, and amusing”. Wren felt extremely complimented by the remark.
Oh for God’s sake, just look it up on dictionary.com.
The first definition on dictionary.com is “having an extremely bad reputation”. I’m perfectly willing to apply that to things which are less than utterly reprehensible and morally repugnant. Like, say, the movie Ishtar. Ishtar has an extremely bad reputation. So is there anything wrong with saying “The infamous 1987 comedy flop Ishtar…”?
I was only able to guess that John W Kennedy was being sarcastic. But I wasn’t sure.
-FrL-