|
I don't doubt that there are both very young native speakers and non-native speakers who aren't familiar with the changes in certain words' meanings over time, but frankly, I'd expect anyone who shows active interest in downloading and reading 19th century works (especially such which aren't likely to be part of any compulsory reading list in schools) to have some considerable experience with, well, reading books, and with the concept of older vocabulary existing as well as words changing in meaning.
Besides, when I come across with a word that I am either unfamiliar with or that seems odd in context (in the meaning that I know), there are such things as dictionaries.
In general, I'm not opposed to very minor updating (when noted as such in the preface) - specifically in spelling, either for internal consistency in the text or for consistency with modern usage (in particular such cases that might be mistaken for typos otherwise, e.g. freind -> friend); to-day -> today would also not bother me but at the same time I'm familiar with to-day and find it pleasantly quaint, part of the overall feeling and atmosphere of reading an older book.
Actual vocabulary changes though... I'd really prefer it if that didn't happen. I suppose I see why they happen in children's books modernised for today's sensibilities, but in older works more likely to be read by people over ten years old, definitely not. Footnotes (leaving the original word and adding a footnote explaining its usage or giving a modern equivalent) are a much better way to go about any obsolete or potentially confusing words, IMHO.
(I started reading 19th century English literature - printed, not particularly modernised editions - when I was about 17-18, as a non-native speaker. This was before the era of Internet and before using English actively in my daily life. Yeah, it was a bit of a struggle for the first few months, but dictionaries exist and it gets easier the more you read.)
|