More help with 'old English' please

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BookCat

I've seen facsimiles of Elizabethan documents using the strange S. Reading them soon becomes second nature (once you stop reading them as f).

Harry: do you have a reference for the Shakespeare quote? I have a small collection of Complete Works and I'd like to look it up to see if any of them use the original. The RSC version is supposed to be based on the first folio (which caused some controversy) but has modernised spellings. Thanks.

It's from the opening scene of "Julius Caesar".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Would you really read Walpole's book in its original version, using 'the long s'? It's in the Internet Archive.

It wouldn't bother me to do so; I'd regard that more as typography than spelling, and it was commonplace as late as authors such as Austen. But equally, I wouldn't deliberately choose an edition that used a long s over one that didn't. I'm not that much of a "purist" . I do, however, have a strong preference when reading an author such as Austen to retain early 19th century spellings such as (to pick two random examples) "chuse" and "clew", because that's the way the English language was used then. For that same reason, I would not personally wish to change either of the examples in your original post.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Thanks for the explanation for 'guess' and for the link to the dictionary. I'll get that dictionary as soon as I can. In the meantime do you have any alternative to 'mould'?

It means the same as "mould" can still mean today: shape, or form.

[rcentros]

Here's en excerpt from the 1609-1610 Douay Rheims' Old Testament Preface (available on Archive.org). The New Testament Preface is longer, but if you worked your way through either it all would pretty much look like this. (I tried to find a sample with most of the oddities of this era.) It's really not that hard to understand, except every now and then you'll find a word no longer used. I don't understand the rules for long and short s'es. Actually there's a lot of this I don't understand (like when to use a "v" for a "u" and vice versa and when not to).

EDIT: One thing I have figured out, however, is why a "w" is called a "double u" and not a double "v." In this Preface w's were "V V" (but closer together).

If anie demand, why it is now allowed to haue the holie Scriptures in vulgar tongues, which generally is not permitted, but in the three sacred only: for further declaration of this & other like pointes we remite you to the Preface, before the New Teſtament. Only here, as by an Epitome, we ſhal repete the ſumme of al, that is there more largely diſcuſſed. To this firſt queſtion therefore we anſwer, that both juſt reaſon, & higheſt authoritie of the Church, judge it not abſolutely neceſſarie, nor alwayes conuenient, that holie Scriptures ſhould be in vulgar tongues. For being as they are, hard to be vunderſtood, euen by the lerned, reaſon doth dictate to reaſonable men, that they were not written, nor ordayned to be read indifferently of al men. Experiēce alſo teacheth, that through ignorance, ioyned often with pride and preſumption, manie reading Scriptures have erred groſly, by miſunderſtanding God's word.

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by rcentros

don't understand the rules for long and short s'es.

The most common rule was that the long ſ was used at the beginning or middle of words, while the short s was used at the end of the word, except in a double s the second was always short-form (“aſsets”).

This goes back to the Greek sigma, which had different forms at the end of the word vs. in the middle/front (ς and σ).

Your excerpt mostly obeys that, except for some reason in one instance of the word “sacred”. Sometimes (depending on the printer and era), a short s would be used before an f or in some other cases where the long ſ was deemed unaesthetic. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe they ran out of long ſ'es and had to sub in a short one, maybe it was an idiosyncrasy of the printer or a transitional form.

Actually there's a lot of this I don't understand (like when to use a "v" for a "u" and vice versa and when not to).

EDIT: One thing I have figured out, however, is why a "w" is called a "double u" and not a double "v." In this Preface w's were "V V" (but closer together).

U and V were one letter, hence W being named as it is.

When they began to differentiate, originally “u” was used in the middle/end of a word, and “v” at the beginning. Your excerpt mostly follows this rule, except for one instance of the word “have”.

The late 1300s is when the two began to differentiate, a process that took centuries, so the fact that Douay-Rheims is a little transitional and occasionally fuzzes the rules isn't surprising.

On top of all that, spelling and typesetting were pretty loose with the rules in general until fairly recently.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by sjfan

The most common rule was that the long ſ was used at the beginning or middle of words, while the short s was used at the end of the word, except in a double s the second was always short-form (“aſsets”).

This goes back to the Greek sigma, which had different forms at the end of the word vs. in the middle/front (ς and σ).

Your excerpt mostly obeys that, except for some reason in one instance of the word “sacred”. Sometimes (depending on the printer and era), a short s would be used before an f or in some other cases where the long ſ was deemed unaesthetic. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe they ran out of long ſ'es and had to sub in a short one, maybe it was an idiosyncrasy of the printer or a transitional form.

I screwed up on "ſacred" when I typed it in. But they did use the small "s" for "shal." And the small "s" – when there's a double "s" – doesn't occur anywhere in that Preface. It's always "ſſ" as in "neceſſary" there. I guess it wasn't all completely standardized yet (or maybe these editors weren't aware of the standards). But I appreciate all the information you've given me. I was just making uneducated guesses.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by BookCat

I agree with Harry. I prefer to read the original text. Something from the 18th century should be no problem for anyone used to literature of that century: Robinson Crusoe, anything by Henry Fielding, Moll Flanders etc. These are classics which most well-read people have read.

Chaucer does need some translation, but I prefer to also see the original (possible in pbooks which have the original on the left and a translation on the right).
Imagine the cheek of translating Shakespeare!

A few months ago I bought the hardback of the RSC's Shakespeare Complete Works and was horrified to find some words translated. In The Tempest, Ariel uses the term "Bermoothes" which has been changed to "Bermuda"; other words have been weakened by making them more modern. I bought the book because it's single column and has a slightly larger font than most Complete Works.

The point being that I dislike interfering with the original unless, like middle English, it's absolutely necessary.

I have a copy of the Oxford Shakespeare myself. It reads very well.

[Richwood]

Remember too that the first modern truly extensive dictionary of English was not published until 1755, Samuel Johnson's dictionary. Earlier dictionaries were "Difficult Words Lists" or bilingual dictionaries till Johnson's dictionary. The 1604 Cawdrey word list was only a few thousand words. Until a reasonably complete dictionary was published spelling was flexible to put it mildly. The period before the Johnson dictionary was also a period of great growth of the English language vocabulary due to exploration and discoveries around the world as well as words adopted from other languages.

For readers, the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary complete edition claims to include all words post 1150 AD and about 7500 whose use predates that date if they continued in use after then.

[BookCat]

Originally Posted by crich70

I have a copy of the Oxford Shakespeare myself. It reads very well.

There are a few Oxford Shakespeare's, I have two. One is a set of three volumes: Histories; Tragedies; Comedies. The problem with this is that, although attractive, it doesn't contain the poetry (Sonnets etc) and the scene settings aren't given at the beginning of each scene, just Enter Othello and Casio, or whoever.

The other Oxford I have is a small volume which is traditionally edited, with the usual scene settings and containing the poems and various glossaries at the back (words, characters etc). I don't like the font in this one, but it's useful as a quick reference.

[HarryT]

If you have a large-screen device, the best ebook edition of the Oxford Shakespeare is this one, I think. It's a "Print Replica" book, which means a PDF in a Kindle "wrapper". I used the "KindleUnpack" Calibre plugin to extract the original PDF from it, and it looks great on my iPad.

[DiapDealer]

What's the confusion on the first phrase in the O.P.?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What's the confusion on the first phrase in the O.P.?

Just the (by modern conventions) non-standard spelling of the word "poor", I think.

[BookCat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you have a large-screen device, the best ebook edition of the Oxford Shakespeare is this one, I think. It's a "Print Replica" book, which means a PDF in a Kindle "wrapper". I used the "KindleUnpack" Calibre plugin to extract the original PDF from it, and it looks great on my iPad.

Thanks, but apart from the humungous price, I don't have a large screen device. For anyone studying the plays, it's usually best to buy the individual Arden editions in paperback. That's how I first studied him at F.E. College and Uni. Now I can read him as easily as a modern novel.

As for the original post, it's easy to see what those words mean because of the context.
For example:
'No, No, Madam, Lady Isabella is of another guess mould than you take her for.'
If you take out guess mould, you're left with:
'No, No, Madam, Lady Isabella is of another .... than you take her for.'
It becomes clear that "guess mould" means something like "such type" or something along those lines.

Well, it seems clear to me!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Thanks, but apart from the humungous price, I don't have a large screen device. For anyone studying the plays, it's usually best to buy the individual Arden editions in paperback. That's how I first studied him at F.E. College and Uni. Now I can read him as easily as a modern novel.

I have the complete set of Arden Shakespeare paperbacks (or complete as of a few years ago - I haven't bought a few of the latest releases), and I agree that they are the best around. However, they fill a moderate size bookcase, and in total they cost several hundred pounds.

I have quite a few "complete works" - RSC, (several) Oxford, and Arden, and the one I linked to is now my favourite. I judge a Complete Works on the quality of its footnotes. The older Oxford (the edition with the picture of the London skyline on it) has no footnotes at all. The RSC and Arden just have word meanings. The new Oxford has more extensive notes than either, although obviously not approaching those of the paperback Ardens. It is expensive, you're right, but not out of line for a 3400 page book, to my mind. For comparison, the RSC is 2400 pages, and the older Oxford a paltry 1300 pages (because it's printed in two columns). As you can see from the page count, the new Oxford has an awful lot more in it! Both in terms of the content of each individual play, and also in terms of plays that modern linguistic analysis indicates Shakespeare probably had a hand in, which haven't previously been considered part of his "canon".

This is a book that's way easier to read as a PDF than a paper book. I've seen the paper version, and even though it's a thing of beauty as an book, it weighs kg even though the pages are as thin as tissue paper (it's the kind of paper that Bibles are often printed on, if you know what I mean?). You'd need to read it with the book on a table or in your lap, and I'd be petrified of tearing the pages. Much easier to hold my iPad!

[BookCat]

Harry, I just wonder why anyone would need a Complete Works which is extensively annotated. For me, the purpose of the C Ws is to read the plays casually, like a novel, rather than for scholarly reasons. This is what I do with mine.

When someone less familiar with Shakespeare is studying a play, or a couple of plays, it's best to get them individually in the Arden editions, no need to buy the entire works. I had to study about six of the plays while a student and didn't purchase a Complete Works for this, but the aforementioned individual Ardens. I wouldn't have been able to afford the better Completes; instead I had an old second-hand one which I purchased from a market stall.

The Shakespeare you linked to does look nice, I just don't see the need for it.