Anne's english

[c_ris]

Originally Posted by ghyle

Not quite.

We should read, for example, Langland or Chaucer in his English, yes (to choose an extreme), however, that does not preclude the use of glosses and other aids for the lay reader I also raised the possibility of adaptions, no? It is eminently, and no doubt would be enjoyably, possible to adapt Chaucer into prose, give it a bit of a fantasy twist, and have that.

As for Rousseau, I did admit the place of translations, into English. But if the French were to read the texts, they should read them in Rousseau's French, not their own version.

Reading Chaucer in his own words in BLOODY hard work! It may be fun for people like you, but not for the average reader, who reads for enjoyment, and for whom textual purity is essential.

Try reading Hobbes' Leviathan in his own words. I have. And it RIDICULOUSLY hard. Also Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is again full of flowery language and old-style grammar, but Burke is more modern than Hobbes to start with. For me, I had to struggle through these 'pure' works because I was reading for a specific purpose, for my uni course. But for someone else, it would have been less likely that they would have bothered to read them. I know that I would have given up had I not had to read.

Then answer is not updating the work, but adapting the work. Consider the recent series of adaptations from Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales. You will notice that the settings, and situations have been contemporised, for example, and it is accessible to less determined readers than myself.

That is a complete change of the text though, rather than updating the language to make it more accessible.

I have nothing against adaptation; I encourage it. But the original text must stand as it is, and should be approached as it is.

The original text must always be available, but modifications MUST be made if it to be accessible to those who wish to read for enjoyment.

[ghyle]

Originally Posted by c_ris

Reading Chaucer in his own words in BLOODY hard work! It may be fun for people like you, but not for the average reader, who reads for enjoyment, and for whom textual purity is essential.

Reading Chaucer in the Middle English can be hard, yes, but as a result it can, for the effort, be rewarding. When you argue that the text should be made more readable for our contemporaries, and I argue that such are permissable as adaptations, we are, in essence, asking for the same thing. However, whereas you allow the possibility of Chaucer being identified as the primary author of the piece (and authorship is a far more complex situation than many realise, as we both know, no?), I allow only the possibility that Chaucer be identified as the source of the adaptations, and not the literal author of them.

We admit the same basic thing; what differs is the identificatory relationship with the original text of that modernisation.

Originally Posted by c_ris

Try reading Hobbes' Leviathan in his own words. I have. And it RIDICULOUSLY hard. Also Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is again full of flowery language and old-style grammar, but Burke is more modern than Hobbes to start with. For me, I had to struggle through these 'pure' works because I was reading for a specific purpose, for my uni course. But for someone else, it would have been less likely that they would have bothered to read them. I know that I would have given up had I not had to read.

I've read Hobbes, but not Burke. I look forward to the latter. I struggled with Leviathan, yes, but that was an artefact of the argument, not the language, so much.

Originally Posted by c_ris

That is a complete change of the text though, rather than updating the language to make it more accessible.

I didn't argue that there was a complete fidelity to the original, but that it was a modernised adaptation. I've not seen it myself, though. I can understand your point: the setting, and the plot be retained, rather than the medium in which they're basically encoded, right? As in Shakespeare's work derived from Holingshead and Plutarch, no? Now there's the quintessential chap: adapted work, and in doing so created masterpieces. Salut!

Originally Posted by c_ris

The original text must always be available, but modifications MUST be made if it to be accessible to those who wish to read for enjoyment.

I can't agree. If we modify it, the original text is destroyed, no matter how. What we should do, then, is have the original text, and make adaptations from it. If we wish to make the original text more accessible, without making adaptations, then we can produce aids: glosses, etc. as I mentioned before. We can also, if you like, produce work that can lead into the original, such as popular works about Shakespeare or Chaucer. To use Leviathan, there could be an "Introduction" to that work for the general reader, setting it in its context, looking at its language, how we obtained its current form, looking in detail at its argument, and so on.

I can actually see us, mate, collaborating on suchlike works, and having a right old time in the process of doing so. Now: that would be fun, no?

BTW: I appreciate the effort that you're putting into this; I admire you for the effort you're placing, and I respect you as a result. And we haven't even started on originality....

[c_ris]

Originally Posted by ghyle

I've read Hobbes, but not Burke. I look forward to the latter. I struggled with Leviathan, yes, but that was an artefact of the argument, not the language, so much.

His argument is relatively simple once you get past the language

I can't agree. If we modify it, the original text is destroyed, no matter how. What we should do, then, is have the original text, and make adaptations from it. If we wish to make the original text more accessible, without making adaptations, then we can produce aids: glosses, etc. as I mentioned before. We can also, if you like, produce work that can lead into the original, such as popular works about Shakespeare or Chaucer. To use Leviathan, there could be an "Introduction" to that work for the general reader, setting it in its context, looking at its language, how we obtained its current form, looking in detail at its argument, and so on.

Modification in LANGUAGE but retaining the rest of it is essential for popular works such as those of Shakespeare to remain in the public mind. If you try and sell the works of Shakespeare as he wrote them, then much fewer would - or could - read them. And so they would drop from view and be available to NO-ONE in any manner. Shakespeare remains popular quite simply because his works are used a lot in schools and are often adapted into plays and movies. That is why Shakespeare sells, and why he is known. If they are NOT adapted then people will NOT know about them, and then EVERYONE will lose out.

I can actually see us, mate, collaborating on suchlike works, and having a right old time in the process of doing so. Now: that would be fun, no?

BTW: I appreciate the effort that you're putting into this; I admire you for the effort you're placing, and I respect you as a result. And we haven't even started on originality....

Ditto

[ghyle]

Originally Posted by c_ris

Modification in LANGUAGE but retaining the rest of it is essential for popular works such as those of Shakespeare to remain in the public mind. If you try and sell the works of Shakespeare as he wrote them, then much fewer would - or could - read them. And so they would drop from view and be available to NO-ONE in any manner. Shakespeare remains popular quite simply because his works are used a lot in schools and are often adapted into plays and movies. That is why Shakespeare sells, and why he is known. If they are NOT adapted then people will NOT know about them, and then EVERYONE will lose out.

I'm not sure that modifying Shakespeare's language is, in his case, essential. It seems to me that there are few works where such a modification would not be useful, given the strength of their appearances within culture.

However, you are right that the popularity is in part due to their frequent adaptation, both into faithful movies, and 'retellings'. As for stage productions, these are less adaptations as they are recontextualisations, so that each production is, ideally to most, an updating of the play, and an attempt to make it contemporary.

Shakespeare is not too difficult, though, if we are led into them, as in schools, and we have a passing familiarity already. He is a modern writer after all.

[c_ris]

Originally Posted by ghyle

Shakespeare is not too difficult, though, if we are led into them, as in schools, and we have a passing familiarity already. He is a modern writer after all.

In what sense is Shakespeare a 'modern' writer? His grammar and spelling is archaic, and he lived in what is defined as the EARLY MODERN period (that of Elizabeth I and James I (and VI)). The Modern perios started in 1789 with the French Revolution, according to historians.

[ghyle]

He's to me a modern writer in that he used modern, albeit early modern, English, rather than Middle English. He's also a modern writer in that he stands at the first efflorescence of characterisation in English drama, and has proved pivotal for so many writers afterwards.

Although I don't hold him to be the greatest writer overall (rather Homer higher, for example), he is the greatest writer of the English language to me.

[granath]

When I read Anne's work, I don't really care if it's the UK or US edition. My spoken English is largely British, with a very slight Finnish accent, but I switched to US spelling online ages ago. I work as a translator for the government, and professionally I'm required to use British English (although whether that's still true following Brexit remains to be seen) so I'm comfortable reading both variants.


However, reading US editions of Dick Francis' or Agatha Christie's works is simply weird, and I made sure the Harry Potter books I bought were UK editions.


Regarding Shakespeare, Elizabethan English was closer to some modern US dialects than any UK dialect. Certainly closer than the posh English of the British aristocracy, in which it is often presented on stage or in movies. I'd love to see Original Pronunciation presentations of some of Shakespeare's plays.

[GinnyStar]

Trying to move in and out this program, is slowing me down,, being blind, and havaing low vision, and having a learning probblems, wwwith grammer, english, and spelling, is making harder to post. "P

I just found a audio copy of a book, on to do image description. for those who are like me, low or no vision. Been looking for a whuile. But here is a segment on theater and dance, also musical, and some of how to use reminds me, of some of Anne books,. Rivght now I don't have the links established nor can I give you more on it. Butt, one thing is in some of her books DD RSR are tow that are comming to mind, right now. the UK veversons have more fokls in them then the US verson, I only have atwo book from a member of NTK in UK verson, but I don't recall too much abnout this problem,., I've rI have I have gone off topic here, if I have I am sorry. When I get time, I shal post that bbook// for Its a good book, for those that like to klkhelp folks, for one think those in UK, are more advanced in this wer here the USA., I still wish to get the musical that I got from SJack done, with image discription of couse. Its has have to make sights that have images more easire to read for that have vision problems. and it, might make thing more understanding in the long rung, I hope this helps.

[vyon]

That's an interesting point - have the American editions had some of the minor characters edited out? Or was that in the audio edition? I can't test for myself because my copies of Anne's books and the Harry Potter books are all British and I don't do audio books, they send me to sleep.

I find English words missing the "u" frustrating as they leap out at me as a proofreader who trained in a newspaper that was fanatical about keeping British spelling. And that holds up my enjoyment of the story.

[P'ter]

So the Pernese spelling of 'gitar' jangles.

[GinnyStar]

Originally Posted by vyon

That's an interesting point - have the American editions had some of the minor characters edited out? Or was that in the audio edition? I can't test for myself because my copies of Anne's books and the Harry Potter books are all British and I don't do audio books, they send me to sleep.

I find English words missing the "u" frustrating as they leap out at me as a proofreader who trained in a newspaper that was fanatical about keeping British spelling. And that holds up my enjoyment of the story.

Yes, US Dragoneyes/DE its called Red Star Rising/RSR inalso, DragonDawns/DD US/UK sorry about that. is what I was taliking about, I don't know while, their a Thread in the Dragonriders of Pern/DRoP I hope this clears up foks, I am just alittle calmer themn I was before, 'bbut for how long?

1Who Who in the Shared AU Pern,
/Non-Crafted Staff
Fath, Headwoman/Goldrider gold Lakotath


Need to know if this was the Headwoman that told Jade Fire’s Wingleader about my NPC Potter.
'ut for howlong is question, sometime I am good, and mty mind and my typing keep up with each each other, but somethime that don't

I only have the USA verson, in prnt for Dragonrriders of PPern,. The two UK edition, are from two of Anne other works, Pegus in Space and Mimish''s Ship ?? ussure if I got that spell right or not,

[GinnyStar]

Originally Posted by vyon

That's an interesting point - have the American editions had some of the minor characters edited out? Or was that in the audio edition? I can't test for myself because my copies of Anne's books and the Harry Potter books are all British and I don't do audio books, they send me to sleep.


My are are USA edititon, outside of two non Dragonrider of Pern/DPoP also in audio. But it show in Dragoneyes/DE 9
I find English words missing the "u" frustrating as they leap out at me as a proofreader who trained in a newspaper that was fanatical about keeping British spelling. And that holds up my enjoyment of the story.

t
Srtill having problems, with my text to speech software some were their a thed in theDragonrider of Pern/DROP about it, but yes, all my are UAS ecdition. tow that come to mind are Dragoseye/Dor Red Star Rising/RSR in the UK. I am s only have the USA editions in aadjuo. Off the opic of my head, not unless it, was in the UK or Irland, like some Anne's other books like The Lady? I cn't rcall the name of its other title, or like theset their. Got love that I can't ssay just spell it once more.

[granath]

Originally Posted by P'ter

So the Pernese spelling of 'gitar' jangles.

Haha, I saw what you did there.


I always figured it was a stringed instrument somewhat similar to a sitar rather than a guitar.

[GinnyStar]

Originally Posted by granath

Haha, I saw what you did there.


I always figured it was a stringed instrument somewhat similar to a sitar rather than a guitar.

Question, I am going see if I can go back and find what into the world you are talking I think I know what both ar. I recall a insterment aht has sing and looks like a bright, holding them up, don't recall whart its call at the moment, its reminds of a eartha vrigfht by whies. so I can find this thread or like the A or VVuuck, a places that show Arart there,, more latersome in the Home tow of Bucks Milwaukee

[vyon]

Originally Posted by granath

Haha, I saw what you did there.


I always figured it was a stringed instrument somewhat similar to a sitar rather than a guitar.

I think if she intended it to be a sitar she'd have mentioned the sympathetic strings - the instrument is notoriously difficult to tune and keep tuned. I had a friend who played it in school assembly halls and was always complaining how difficult it was to keep it tuned in that drafty environment.

I've always thought that a gitar was something of the guitar / ukulele family.

[GinnyStar]

Well LOL at myself, the only I have hheard of are something heard on th TV Wisconsin PBS program Wisconsin Life a Nickle-Harp, you use a bow to play and has keya bar to play it. I need to eat, so I shall have to come back later.

Its a sweetish insterment, not too may maker here in USA, there is herre in Wisconsin. 'srug shshourders's here.

[Bristol]

Language is an interesting thing. We gather it as we learn. Our language is a window to our past. I'm sure mine is heavily influenced by Anne and her dear friend Isaac Asimov. So I probably wouldn't notice anything on in Anne's writing because it is so ingrained in my education. I mean I started reading her when I was around 9 and was reading her books up until her death (I haven't had as much time for reading in the last decade).

One item of language that has come up on Facebook has been her used of the word "forked" to describe a dragon's tail. To some that means a split tail. But as I pondered it I suddenly realized where I'd seen that description before and how it went with drawings. I did a few Google searches and sure enough, the visuals matched. Forked is also used for that triangle tipped devil's tail that is so often depicted on dragons, such as the Welsh dragon (on their flag). I think Anne's use shows that influence as all the artwork she approved had a tail similar to the Welsh dragon. But my education did not lead me to ever picture forked as a split tail. I think I'd read enough to pick up what she intended as that triangle shape. But that is my interpretation.

But such is language. One word can mean something to one reader and something else to another. It is all based on our individual language development.

[granath]

Originally Posted by Bristol

Language is an interesting thing. We gather it as we learn. Our language is a window to our past. I'm sure mine is heavily influenced by Anne and her dear friend Isaac Asimov. So I probably wouldn't notice anything on in Anne's writing because it is so ingrained in my education. I mean I started reading her when I was around 9 and was reading her books up until her death (I haven't had as much time for reading in the last decade).

One item of language that has come up on Facebook has been her used of the word "forked" to describe a dragon's tail. To some that means a split tail. But as I pondered it I suddenly realized where I'd seen that description before and how it went with drawings. I did a few Google searches and sure enough, the visuals matched. Forked is also used for that triangle tipped devil's tail that is so often depicted on dragons, such as the Welsh dragon (on their flag). I think Anne's use shows that influence as all the artwork she approved had a tail similar to the Welsh dragon. But my education did not lead me to ever picture forked as a split tail. I think I'd read enough to pick up what she intended as that triangle shape. But that is my interpretation.

But such is language. One word can mean something to one reader and something else to another. It is all based on our individual language development.

Yeah, that's really interesting! I certainly imagined something more akin to the split tail on a typical devil than the triangular tail end of a Welsh dragon, although in my mind's eye I saw the tail more like the horizontal flukes of a whale... In my imagination, the dragons look a lot more like Robin Wood's artwork than Michael Whelan's, but I've noticed that the tip of the tail is often not shown on the pictures.