Quote:
Originally Posted by shalym
I don't understand. If I read it aloud, it's exactly the same as if I'm reading it, since I create the voice in my head that I hear when I'm reading it silently. I could understand your point if you said to listen to someone else read it aloud, but not having me read it.
|
Lucky you.
I know some people have that advantage. Plenty of people need to actually hear poetry and plays. No doubt there might be a continuum. I've not seen any formal research. But I'm aware of both extremes.
I also have to read Scottish dialect out loud and then I understand it as I'm perfectly conversant with spoken Ulster-Scots, but have almost never read it apart from a bit of Burns which is harder. Similarly Chaucer, Elizabethan and early Jacobean (e.g. Shakespeare) varies from nearly comprehensible to almost totally understandable when read out loud, because while the Normans did fix Cween to Queen and Cying to King, more consistent spelling and more like modern English arrives in the 18th C due to dictionaries and an increase in printed fiction.
Though in the mid 19th C. it was still cheaper to see the play in London than buy the book it was based on.
I guess I've maybe only read three plays that are not Shakespeare: ‘She Stoops to Conquer’, ‘A Man for All Seasons’ and a version of the Book of Esther.