You can hear an example of this kind of OP in the recording from Romeo and Juliet above. Eminent Shakespeare director Trevor Nunn claims that it might have sounded more like American English does today, suggesting that the language that migrated across the pond retained more Elizabethan characteristics than the one that stayed home. Not everyone agrees on what Shakespeare’s OP might have sounded like. Two-thirds of Shakespeare’s sonnets, the father and son team claim, have rhymes that only work in OP. The Crystals demonstrate the important pun between “loins” and “lines” (as in genealogical lines) in Romeo and Juliet, which is completely lost in so-called “Received Pronunciation” (or “proper” British English). Unlike today’s very frustrating tension between spelling and pronunciation, Early Modern English tended to be much more phonetic and words were pronounced much more like they were spelled, or vice versa (though spelling was very irregular, a clue to the wide variety of regional accents).ģ. Since, as Crystal points out, the language was evolving rapidly, and there wasn’t only one kind of OP, there is a great deal of contemporary commentary on this evolution, which early modern writers like Jonson had the chance to observe firsthand.Ģ. Shakespeare contemporary Ben Jonson tells us, for example, that speakers of English in his time and place pronounced the “R” (a feature known as “rhoticity”). Observations made by people writing on the language at the time, commenting on how words sounded, which words rhyme, etc. (In his excellent textbook on the subject, linguist Charles Barber bookends the period roughly between 15.) David Crystal cites three important kinds of evidence that guide us toward recovering early modern’s original pronunciation (or “OP”).ġ. Crystal dates his Shakespearean early modern to around 1600.
KL IV.vi.238 And ’choud ha’ bin zwaggeredģH6 V.ii.45 That mought not be distinguishedĬor I.i.Shakespeare’s English is called by scholars Early Modern English (not, as many students say, “Old English,” an entirely different, and much older language). TS induction.1.87 thou didst it excellent Tem I.i.19 remember whom thou hast aboard RJ II.iv.74 Thou wast never with me ĢH4 III.ii.162 I would thou wert a man’s tailor MND III.i.140 Thou art as wise as thou art beautifulĢnd person singular, present tense also a dialect usageģrd person plural, present tense The chief differences between then and now are shown below. The most distinctive verbs, both in Shakespearian and in modern English, are be, have, do, and the set of auxiliary verbs known as the modals, such as can, may, would, and shall. The demands of the metre are also important, -eth giving the poet the option of an extra syllable: a rhythmical contrast with the same verb can be seen at the beginning of Cleon’s speech, ‘Who wanteth food and will not say he wants it’ ( Per I.iv.11). Context is important: -(e)th is used in many formal proclamations, and it is often found in stage directions īut there are some curious mixtures (‘Enter Douglas he fighteth with Falstaff, who falls down as if he were dead’, 1H4 V.iv.76). The factors governing the choice of this ending are not entirely understood. In Shakespearian English, the verbs which most commonly take the ending are hath ( has), doth ( does), and saith ( says). Both were reducing in frequency, and in due course the -est form would disappear (modern: you go), and the -(e)th form be entirely replaced by -s (modern: she goes). Two present-tense verb-endings from Middle English are still to be found in the Early Modern period: -est for the 2nd person singular following thou (as in thou goest) and -th or -eth for the 3rd person singular (as in she goeth).
0 kommentar(er)
