In more innocent days...

[AlexBell]

On the back page of this week's Guardian Weekly there is an interesting article by Nicholas Tucker entitled 'In more innocent days, you could write about cocks and not be misunderstood.'

The link is "http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/26/swallows-and-amazons-titty-tatty-literary-innocence"

In it he gives several examples of words used in books in the early 20th century which were (mostly) perfectly appropriate then, but have been changed in recent printings because they have changed their meanings. Many of the books are coming into the Public Domain or are already there.

If the books appear in the MobileRead library it will be interesting to see how the Facsimilites in our membership respond if the 21st century words are used rather than the original words. For what it is worth I, as an unrepentant Bowdlerite, would be offended if the original authors are forced to say things to us in the 21st century which they clearly did not mean to say.

[fjtorres]

Well, cock-fighting is usable in polite company in the US, so long as you refer to it as illegal and barbaric. And nobody snickers at cock-a-doodle-doo.

[crich70]

And there is the synonym for cat that also refers to a particular part of female anatomy. Some old stories use it for our domestic feline. Of course old words do change meanings. A stew at one time was a brothel, and coffin was the crust of a meat pie.

[eschwartz]

If I am discussing the topic of fowl today, I will feel perfectly comfortable mentioning cock, a/k/a male chicken. Although granted, I would more naturally gravitate toward the term "rooster".


I have absolutely no problem with older works using words whose meanings have changed -- a reader should be able to understand, when they are reading about older times, that an older version of the language is likely to be used.
That being said, I also have absolutely no problem with modernized texts. I don't really view that as bowdlerization, since the meaning isn't being changed. It is a translation from Ye Olde Englishe to Ye Newe Englishe.

[PandathePanda]

I really like to read books the way they originally where created with the original language use. So "updating" words that "lost: their meaning makes me feel cheated.

[ingmar]

How about a footnote, then? I for one would certainly like to read books the way the author wrote them. This is particular true for some recent P.C.-related changes that have been made to a couple of books and which, frankly, infuriate me.

There are many things that wouldn't be written today, be it single words or whole concepts or story lines (the casual misogyny in many Enid Blyton books comes to mind), but we must see those books in context, perhaps explain them if not readily understood, and then move on. Nobody is forced to read them, and those who do usually get the (historical and other) context.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by PandathePanda

I really like to read books the way they originally where created with the original language use. So "updating" words that "lost: their meaning makes me feel cheated.

+1

[eschwartz]

I think there are really two issues here:

• bowdlerization, e.g. Politically Correct modification of the author's intent by removing objectionable material.
• modernization, e.g. what is essentially a translation from old to new English. The author's intended meaning is preserved, even if the words themselves are different.

For some reason virtually everyone as near as I can make out conflate the two concepts.

[PandathePanda]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It is a translation from Ye Olde Englishe to Ye Newe Englishe.

But some of us like Ye Olde Englishe, what's better than this?

O Hatefull hellish Snake, what furie furst
Brought thee from balefull house of Proserpine,
Where in her bosome she thee long had nurst,
And fostred vp with bitter milke of tine,
Fowle Gealosie, that turnest loue diuine
To ioylesse dread, and mak'st the louing hart
With hatefull thoughts to languish and to pine,
And feed it selfe with selfe-consuming smart?
Of all the passions in the mind thou vilest art.

Or

And with them eke, O Goddesse heauenly bright,
Mirrour of grace and Maiestie diuine,
Great Lady of the greatest Isle, whose light
Like Phoebus lampe throughout the world doth shine,
Shed thy faire beames into my feeble eyne,
And raise my thoughts too humble and too vile,
To thinke of that true glorious type of thine,
The argument of mine afflicted stile:
The which to heare, vouchsafe, O dearest dred a-while.

[doubleshuffle]

Thanks, Alex, for pointing out that article. I still think that those words which have changed their meanings (though most of the examples in the article were already ambiguous when they were written) shouldn't be changed, not even in children's books. There might be some distracting amusement involved at the beginning, but an awareness of the changing nature of language can't be learned too soon.

And this led to coffee on keyboard:

“Cock” as slang for the male member has been current since 1610. Yet in the chapter headed Aunt Jane’s Treat in Richmal Crompton’s 1924 novel, William the Fourth, one of William’s respectable maiden aunts accompanies him to a fair, where she rides on a merry-go-round, mounting – as the author puts it – “a giant cock” … “It seemed to give her a joy that all her blameless life had so far failed to produce,” it says.

The author of the article can't be serious when he says Crompton wasn't aware of what he was writing. He must have been making a (rather misogynistic and nasty) joke at the expense of some real maiden aunt's expense, just that, being "a blameless ex-classics teacher" writing a book, he couldn't very well use the same language as the lads down at the pub, could he? If Crompton really didn't realize what he was writing, Sigmund Freud would have had a field day with him...

ETA: I really like "Facsimilist"...

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I think there are really two issues here:

• bowdlerization, e.g. Politically Correct modification of the author's intent by removing objectionable material.
• modernization, e.g. what is essentially a translation from old to new English. The author's intended meaning is preserved, even if the words themselves are different.

For some reason virtually everyone as near as I can make out conflate the two concepts.

These are two different concepts, but your "modernization = translation" simply doesn't apply to texts written in Modern English, not even Early Modern English. Chaucer is Middle English and does indeed need translation for people who don't want to seriously study Middle English. Shakespeare is Early Modern English (as is Spenser, and Panda's examples above are perfectly readable) and doesn't call for translation but for annotation. And the same goes for everything written since.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PandathePanda

But some of us like Ye Olde Englishe, what's better than this?
Or

Neither of the texts you quote are examples of "Old English"; they are Early Modern English.

This is an example of Old English:

Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cēnre,
mōd sceal þe māre, swā ūre mægen lȳtlað

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by PandathePanda

But some of us like Ye Olde Englishe, what's better than this?
Or

Nothing at all. But I refuse to participate in the usual screeching when someone does make a modern translation and everyone conflates that with bowdlerization.

old and modern translations are both valid things for people to want (unlike bowdlerized texts which are ugly) and I don't see why there isn't room for both to exist.

Unfortunately not everyone agrees with me. Naming no names, as if anyone here were in that camp I would've forgotten them anyway.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Neither of the texts you quote are examples of "Old English"; they are Early Modern English.

This is an example of Old English:

Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cēnre,
mōd sceal þe māre, swā ūre mægen lȳtlað

Ye Olde Englishe

Also known as Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe <-- TvTropes is king.



I had absolutely no intention of referring to actual Old English, note the ridiculously exaggerated pseudo-modern/old/something spelling

I forgot there was someone here who actually is into Old English. And doesn't recognize the classic joke about Old English when he sees it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Ye Olde Englishe

Also known as Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe <-- TvTropes is king.



I had absolutely no intention of referring to actual Old English, note the ridiculously exaggerated pseudo-modern/old/something spelling

Fair enough, but in a discussion like this where we are specifically discussing uses of archaic English, I honestly think it's helpful to use the correct names for things. You may have been joking, but I've encountered innumerable people who really do think that Shakespeare is "Old English".