I was watching the new version of “The Merchant of Venice” this weekend and at one point I asked the others watching: How standred was the English grammer and word order in the Bards plays? I mean, did the common people speak it, or it a more scholarly, literate version of the language?
Shakespeare’s plays were very popular with the common people, so one would assume they understood the language (if not the vocabulary, but few people have Shakespeare’s vocabulary).
Grammar and word order were pretty standard, though spelling was not. Pronunciation and accents probably was what separated the classes.
I would assume that poetic license justifief some monkeying around with word order.
Sometimes, the Bard liked to break the occasional grammar rule such as verbing nouns: “Uncle me no Uncle!” Also, Bill liked to create new words like “assassinate.” So it wasn’t like he was super-strict in his writing style. It’s sort of interesting that when he does it, it’s considered brilliant, but when Dubya does it, he’s just called dumb.
(No cite) The Bard is said to have used an enormous vocabulary, and also of course to have been a great poet, so he made the audience stretch beyond the usual. So he used a more scholarly, creative version, and also used thoroughly vulgar talk when he wanted to.
Our generation no doubt has to stretch a little more, especially when reading a play rather than attending one.
Oh, and actual poetry involves very precise and descriptive use of language, or it’s just an attempt at poetry. [debate commences, but it’s the definition, dammit!]
There’s a difference between an erudite poet of phenomenal vocabulary playing with language in a way that elevates his prose and gives it more lyricism, and someone who occasionally mangles words and obfuscates his meaning.
Sorry, no cite, but my recollection is that in Will’s time, the English vocabulary was even more flexible than it is now. (And, of course, it continues to evolve.) Will is said to have contributed a prodigious number of words personally, but this is primarily because he would coin new words using old roots. Hence the audience’s ability to understand them. Over time, as the plays contined to be presented, many of Will’s variants passed into common usage. The plays being, necessarily, the first attested usage, they were what got cited in the OED.
IIRC he often had two levels of language within a single play; for example, to pick one at random, the nobles and faeries in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” spoke in verse whilst the commoners (Bottom, Fluet etc.) spoke in prose. I seem to remember the same pattern in other plays. I’m guessing that the ‘prose’ parts of Shakespeare are more akin to the language spoken outside the theatre.
Unlike most of Shakespeare’s plays, which are written in iambic pentameter verse, The Merry Wives of Windsor is written almost entirely in prose. It is probably a good representation of how middle class Londoners spoke in Shakespeare’s time.
That’s true. But there’s also a huge double standard at work. I only used Dubya as an example, but it seems like people are more willing to accept a new word from an “educated” person than if some poor white trash coined it. At best, it might be accepted as slang.
There’s a double standard for sure – someone with skill in language purposefully using variations in order to enhance his meaning on the one hand. On the other hand – it’s not poor white trash coining a word – it’s an anti-intellectual politician with supposed elite education being careless with language.
George W. Bush was the example offered. A lot of his popularity is based on his anti-intellectual persona. The “you eggheads can sit around jawing, I’m going to get something done” attitude that makes grown men cream themselves.
Maybe it’ll help me respond to your confusion if you use your words.
How about some quotations where President Bush has expressed anti-intellectualism.
I’m not here to establish as a fact that “Bush is an anti-intellectual.” It was merely commentary on a side point made by someone else and I’m not interested in getting into a tit-for-tat. The general description of the attitude is apparent from what I’ve already said. If you’re that interested on debating the point, you’re free to start a new “Is Bush anti-intellectual?” thread.
Okay, Walloon, I did it for you. Check out Great Debates.
Shakespeare may not have coined many of the words ascribed to him. It’s not merely a matter of using old roots, in some cases he may have heard the new word somewhere and put it in one of his plays. Since his works survived while many others didn’t (due, at least in part, to his popularity), his would be the first known recorded usage.
Fair enough, and doubtless true. But it is also true that Will seemed particularly to delight in “stretching” the language. And his facility at such is one of the reasons (albeit only one, and not necessarily the most important) that his plays enjoy the reputation they do. (Whether one agrees that the reputation is warranted being a separate issue.)