| Author |
Message |
Claus Tondering
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:16 am
Post subject: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
Shakespeare happily rhymed "blood" with "good". How were those two
words pronounced in his time? Do we know?
--
Claus Tondering
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:52 am
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
Claus Tondering wrote:
| Quote: | Shakespeare happily rhymed "blood" with "good". How were those two
words pronounced in his time? Do we know?
I believe that Shakespeare's rhymes are a good guide to the fact that |
the pronunciation was the same or very similar. From what I've been able
to glean pronunciation in his time was much closer to the spelling,
although the connection between the two had already started to break down.
I've also heard that the dialect of the court was closer to the modern
Yorkshire accent than to any form of Received Pronunciation - although,
of course, Shakespeare himself came from the West Midlands.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:07 am
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan" <"einde. ocallaghan wrote:
| Quote: | Claus Tondering wrote:
Shakespeare happily rhymed "blood" with "good". How were those two
words pronounced in his time? Do we know?
I believe that Shakespeare's rhymes are a good guide to the fact that
the pronunciation was the same or very similar. From what I've been
able to glean pronunciation in his time was much closer to the
spelling, although the connection between the two had already started
to break down.
|
Ahem. You haven't said which pronunciation to follow! I'm putting my money
on "good", as being the one for the "-oo-" spelling.
| Quote: | I've also heard that the dialect of the court was closer to the modern
Yorkshire accent than to any form of Received Pronunciation -
although, of course, Shakespeare himself came from the West Midlands.
|
In accent, perhaps - but the actual pronunciation was closer to that of
Middle English.
--
John Briggs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:13 am
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
Claus Tondering wrote:
| Quote: | Shakespeare happily rhymed "blood" with "good". How were those two
words pronounced in his time? Do we know?
|
We do. "Good" seems to have been pronounced the same as it is now (a
short -oo-, rather than the long -oo- of "mood and "food"), so "blood" (now
usually pronounced "blud") would have rhymed with it. As most likely would
have "mood" and "food".
We've just been having a spat along these lines in rec.music.early. I made
the point that performers of Early Music are much more likely to employ
"authentic pronunciation". I rashly stated that Shakespeare's plays were
never performed with Original Pronunciation, but I was informed that there
had been three performances (only) using original pronunciation in June 2004
during the run of "Romeo and Juliet" at Shakespeare's Globe at Bankside in
London.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:16 am
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
John Briggs wrote:
| Quote: | einde. ocallaghan" <"einde. ocallaghan wrote:
Claus Tondering wrote:
Shakespeare happily rhymed "blood" with "good". How were those two
words pronounced in his time? Do we know?
I believe that Shakespeare's rhymes are a good guide to the fact that
the pronunciation was the same or very similar. From what I've been
able to glean pronunciation in his time was much closer to the
spelling, although the connection between the two had already started
to break down.
Ahem. You haven't said which pronunciation to follow! I'm putting my money
on "good", as being the one for the "-oo-" spelling.
I've never heard Shakespeare being performed with original |
pronunciation, so I didn't want to hazard a guess. However in various
books about the history of English I've read that the relationship
between pronunciation and spelling was much closer then than it is now.
| Quote: |
I've also heard that the dialect of the court was closer to the modern
Yorkshire accent than to any form of Received Pronunciation -
although, of course, Shakespeare himself came from the West Midlands.
In accent, perhaps - but the actual pronunciation was closer to that of
Middle English.
|
I was speaking about accent. I believe it was also strongly rhotic -
unlike RP.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:20 am
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
Claus Tondering wrote:
| Quote: | Shakespeare happily rhymed "blood" with "good". How were those two
words pronounced in his time? Do we know?
|
I would refer you to:
E.J. Dobson, English Pronunciation, 1500-1700 (Clarendon Press, 1957/1968).
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Fawthrop
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:16 pm
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 22:16:49 +0100, Claus Tondering <claus@tondering.dk> wrote:
| Shakespeare happily rhymed "blood" with "good".
Still are, in Yorkshire at least
| How were those two
| words pronounced in his time? Do we know?
Short 'u'
--
Dave F |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, einde. ocallaghan wrote:
| Quote: | John Briggs wrote:
Ahem. You haven't said which pronunciation to follow! I'm putting my
money on "good", as being the one for the "-oo-" spelling.
I've never heard Shakespeare being performed with original pronunciation,
so I didn't want to hazard a guess. However in various books about the
history of English I've read that the relationship between pronunciation
and spelling was much closer then than it is now.
|
Indeed. When English was first written, it was spelt phonetically.
However, by Shakepeare's time "correct" spellings were just getting
established. So the spelling used in English represents how English
was spoken in the 16th century.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, einde. ocallaghan wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
Ahem. You haven't said which pronunciation to follow! I'm putting
my money on "good", as being the one for the "-oo-" spelling.
I've never heard Shakespeare being performed with original
pronunciation, so I didn't want to hazard a guess. However in
various books about the history of English I've read that the
relationship between pronunciation and spelling was much closer then
than it is now.
Indeed. When English was first written, it was spelt phonetically.
However, by Shakepeare's time "correct" spellings were just getting
established. So the spelling used in English represents how English
was spoken in the 16th century.
|
It's more complicated than that. Spelling standardised (thanks to printing)
shortly *after* Shakespeare's works were published (say about the middle of
the seventeenth century). Most vowel sounds have changed again since
Shakespeare's day, but the spelling of Shakespeare's day reflected that of
Middle English, which was *before* the Great Vowel Shift. The pronunciation
of some words has changed to match the spelling...
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, John Briggs wrote:
| Quote: | Matthew Huntbach wrote:
Indeed. When English was first written, it was spelt phonetically.
However, by Shakepeare's time "correct" spellings were just getting
established. So the spelling used in English represents how English
was spoken in the 16th century.
It's more complicated than that. Spelling standardised (thanks to printing)
shortly *after* Shakespeare's works were published (say about the middle of
the seventeenth century). Most vowel sounds have changed again since
Shakespeare's day, but the spelling of Shakespeare's day reflected that of
Middle English, which was *before* the Great Vowel Shift. The pronunciation
of some words has changed to match the spelling...
|
If the spelling of Shakespeare's day represented Middle English, then it
had already standardised. Not completely, perhaps, but enough so that
there was no longer a completely phonetical representation.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, John Briggs wrote:
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
Indeed. When English was first written, it was spelt phonetically.
However, by Shakepeare's time "correct" spellings were just getting
established. So the spelling used in English represents how English
was spoken in the 16th century.
It's more complicated than that. Spelling standardised (thanks to
printing) shortly *after* Shakespeare's works were published (say
about the middle of the seventeenth century). Most vowel sounds
have changed again since Shakespeare's day, but the spelling of
Shakespeare's day reflected that of Middle English, which was
*before* the Great Vowel Shift. The pronunciation of some words has
changed to match the spelling...
If the spelling of Shakespeare's day represented Middle English, then
it had already standardised. Not completely, perhaps, but enough so
that there was no longer a completely phonetical representation.
|
Yes, it was standardised enough for scribal (scrivenal?) use, but not for
printing. Modern standardised orthography came in with the printed books of
the mid-seventeenth century. There were proposals in the late sixteenth
century for a more phonetic spelling. The erratic spelling of some
non-professional writers (e.g. Philip Henslowe in his "Diary"), also gives
clues to pronunciation.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HB
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:48 am
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
Claus Tondering wrote:
| Quote: | Shakespeare happily rhymed "blood" with "good". How were those two
words pronounced in his time? Do we know?
|
'Blood' was pronounced as 'good' is now (and back then), exactly as it
is pronounced now in Dutch/Flemish (where 'bloed' and 'goed' also
rhyme).
Way back in Shakespeare's time, English was extremely close to Dutch.
It is due to Caxton and similar people that English turned away from
Dutch (and Plattdeutsch).
Just to give an example: in the Middle Ages, English people did not
speak about "eggs" but about "eyren" (in current Dutch: eieren).
Basically, had the English not moved away and had Luther chosen
Plattdeutsch instead of High German for his Bible translation, a big
part of Western Europe would now speak more or less the same language!
Yet, even today, Flemish/Dutch are closer to English than any other
language.
- HB - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:09 am
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
HB wrote:
| Quote: | Claus Tondering wrote:
Shakespeare happily rhymed "blood" with "good". How were those two
words pronounced in his time? Do we know?
'Blood' was pronounced as 'good' is now (and back then), exactly as it
is pronounced now in Dutch/Flemish (where 'bloed' and 'goed' also
rhyme).
Way back in Shakespeare's time, English was extremely close to Dutch.
It is due to Caxton and similar people that English turned away from
Dutch (and Plattdeutsch).
Just to give an example: in the Middle Ages, English people did not
speak about "eggs" but about "eyren" (in current Dutch: eieren).
Basically, had the English not moved away and had Luther chosen
Plattdeutsch instead of High German for his Bible translation, a big
part of Western Europe would now speak more or less the same language!
Yet, even today, Flemish/Dutch are closer to English than any other
language.
From what I've read this seems to be a gross exaggeration. While it is |
true that in some English dialects the plural "eyren" was used (the
example I've heard of was along the Thames Estuary, i.e. a part of
England with close links with the Low Countries) in others at the same
time the plural was "eggys" (most importantly in London, which as
political capital played a major role in forming the standard language).
Caxton, being based in London, would have been most unlikely to use the
Kentish dialect as the basis for his printing instead of the London one.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giles Todd
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:23 am
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:09:34 +0100, "einde. ocallaghan" <"einde.
ocallaghan"@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
| Quote: | From what I've read this seems to be a gross exaggeration. While it is
true that in some English dialects the plural "eyren" was used (the
example I've heard of was along the Thames Estuary, i.e. a part of
England with close links with the Low Countries) in others at the same
time the plural was "eggys" (most importantly in London, which as
political capital played a major role in forming the standard language).
Caxton, being based in London, would have been most unlikely to use the
Kentish dialect as the basis for his printing instead of the London one.
|
Caxton mentioned the problem himself:
http://www.uni-trier.de/~multimed/egges.htm
Giles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:00 am
Post subject: Re: Shakespeare's pronunciation |
|
|
On Thursday, in article
<vd9gv0d5vl11u1veatokdijrgc7fpr246p@4ax.com>
g@prullenbak.todd.nu "Giles Todd" wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:09:34 +0100, "einde. ocallaghan" <"einde.
ocallaghan"@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
Caxton, being based in London, would have been most unlikely to use the
Kentish dialect as the basis for his printing instead of the London one.
|
Can one be quite sure about that? After all, he was born in the Weald of
Kent.
Do you have any contact address for that page (there are no links
thereon)?
Because I would take issue with the author's gloss of "atte forlond" as
meaning "near the coast". Surely it's more likely the geographical name
of the headland known (nowadays) as North Foreland, this being where they
put ashore.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in