Books People Can't Finish

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by mgbino

I am totally convinced that Finnegan's Wake is one of the earliest examples of trolling.

I would have said that it's one of the earliest examples of gibberish.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But regardless that it's early modern English, knowing how to read early modern English is not a skill kids need to know. It's a skill they don't care about and I don't blame them for it. It's a turn off to reading. So STOP MAKING KIDS READ EARLY MODERN ENGLISH for no good reason at all.

The "good reason" is that it's the language that the man who is widely considered to be the greatest ever writer who's ever used the English language wrote in. You want to deprive young people of their cultural heritage merely because it's "difficult"?

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "good reason" is that it's the language that the man who is widely considered to be the greatest ever writer who's ever used the English language wrote in. You want to deprive young people of their cultural heritage merely because it's "difficult"?

Thanks for mixing up my brain. I was taught that Shakespeare was in late Middle English, and Chaucer was Old English... so I've told some people that I can read Old English. I may have actually said so on this forum.

I can read English all the way back to Chaucer (slower than current-day English obviously, but without much difficulty), but not before, so assuming what you are saying is true, I must adjust some stuff over here. I've looked up the Old English you mentioned (which I didn't even know existed), and I understand zilch. Nada.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Thanks for mixing up my brain. I was taught that Shakespeare was in late Middle English, and Chaucer was Old English... so I've told some people that I can read Old English. I may have actually said so on this forum.

I can read English all the way back to Chaucer (slower than current-day English obviously, but without much difficulty), but not before, so assuming what you are saying is true, I must adjust some stuff over here. I've looked up the Old English you mentioned (which I didn't even know existed), and I understand zilch. Nada.

No, Chaucer is Middle English, which was in use from about the 12th Century, up to around about 1470, when it evolved into Early Modern English, which in turn was in use until about 1650, and was the language of Shakespeare.

Old English, which is sometimes called "Anglo-Saxon", preceded Middle English. It's the language that "Beowulf" is written in.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, Chaucer is Middle English, which was in use from about the 12th Century, up to around about 1470, when it evolved into Early Modern English, which in turn was in use until about 1650, and was the language of Shakespeare.

Old English, which is sometimes called "Anglo-Saxon" preceded Middle English. It's the language that "Beowulf" is written in.

(Am I the only one who liked Chaucer, as-written, she asked meekly?)

Hitch

[HarryT]

Chaucer is wonderful, but it does take a bit of practice for a modern English speaker to get to grips with, largely because there are lots of French words (the English court, where Chaucer was employed, was still French-speaking at the time).

At least Middle English can be understood by a modern reader, unlike Old English, which is essentially a foreign language as far as a modern reader is concerned; it's almost completely incomprehensible.

[Katsunami]

I read Chaucer as written. I always do so with any book, if I can. That means I can read Dutch, German and English back to around +/- 1400 or so, if I take my time. (A LOT of time, in the case of German...) Oh, and Japanese, if it's a story for 4 year olds, written in Hiragana AND I have a dictionary handy

[piperclassique]

Chaucer is fairly accessible. Think northern UK accent with some french words, and choose something short to start. I've read the Canterbury tales more than once, including when on a long walk with my donkey, who seems to enjoy me reading aloud. Not all of the tales are funny, and some seem poorly assorted to the narrator. I learned a large chunk of the prologue by heart when fifteen years old, and can still remember most of what I learned, despite having forgotten many far more important and useful things.
I read Beowulf too, in an edition with the original text and a translation on facing pages. I wish I could find that book again in the twenty packing cases in the barn.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I read Chaucer as written. I always do so with any book, if I can. That means I can read Dutch, German and English back to around +/- 1400 or so, if I take my time. (A LOT of time, in the case of German...) Oh, and Japanese, if it's a story for 4 year olds, written in Hiragana AND I have a dictionary handy

Well, you win. I used to be able to r/w/s Spanish, German, Italian and some Portuguese, but lack of use has probably robbed me of all of it. The Spanish was taught, the German was learned the best way (living in Germany, but decades ago), the Italian and Portuguese picked up via travel and truthfully, they're not hard once you have Spanish.

Now, I can barely remember what I'm doing in English, which is purportedly my cradle language. :-D

Hitch

[Katsunami]

The one snag: I can't write in German without looking up the spelling of every other word and grammar of most sentences. Obviously I can't write or speak any of the old language versions.

[ApK]

I have never had any talent for foreign language. Best I can manage is saying 'I don't speak your language' in several languages. I can't even see what makes 'Old English' related to 'English.'

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "good reason" is that it's the language that the man who is widely considered to be the greatest ever writer who's ever used the English language wrote in. You want to deprive young people of their cultural heritage merely because it's "difficult"?

Shakespeare is not part of my cultural heritage as far as I know.

I would stop the teaching od Shakespeare because it does have an adverse effect on a lot of kids and they don't read for pleasure because it's such a struggle and a turn off. It's not modern enough. Kids these days should be reading more modern books that are more relevant to their live's as they are or as they might be. Shakespeare (as written) is not it.

Personally, I thought most of the books read for English class were a waste of time and I still think that as hardly any of the books read have any meaning to my life.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You want to deprive young people of their cultural heritage merely because it's "difficult"?

That. Because it fits every language. Limiting teaching of a language to the actually current bit kills its breadth and richness. The people treated so will be robbed of the skill of properly expressing themselves beyond very basic concepts. Apart from that: Languages live and change rapidly. Would it be as you desire dear Wolf, then your own grandson wouldn't be able to understand you at all. (what in your case could be seen as a desirable exception )

[meeera]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I would stop the teaching od Shakespeare because it does have an adverse effect on a lot of kids and they don't read for pleasure because it's such a struggle and a turn off. It's not modern enough. Kids these days should be reading more modern books that are more relevant to their live's as they are or as they might be. Shakespeare (as written) is not it.

Shakespeare is drama, and it should be taught as drama, not prose. (And not dropped).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

Shakespeare is drama, and it should be taught as drama, not prose. (And not dropped).

But it is taught as prose and making the kids memorize parts of it is not helping.