Yeah, I disliked Shakespeare especially when my first reading was Romeo and Juliet. No 6th grader should be assigned such a thing but well, after a while when I caught on to it, it was okay. I have to admit, Julius Caesar was much better but that’s not what I’m really bringing to the table today. It is said that W. Shakespeare had a working vocabulary of around 5400 words. That doesn’t sound like that many but when it is also said that the average English speaking person only has a vocabulary of a few hundred, it kinda puts me in a place of awe. I guess one of the reasons his vocabulary was so good is that he made up a lot of words which,......still hang with us today. Words like employer, employed, red-faced and epileptic can be attributed to his imagination and in fact, he produced 422 words that we use in this day and age, Here’s a good read with all 422 words listed at the bottom of the link. Enjoy and be surprised! https://www.litcharts.com/blog/shakespeare/words-shakespeare-invented/
I like 'batty' and 'coppernose' - 'courtship' - fair faced - gentle folk - plumpy - priceless Favourite of his sayings - All that glitters is not gold (The Merchant of Venice)("glisters") As good luck would have it (The Merry Wives of Windsor) Neither a borrower nor a lender be Cold comfort Faint hearted (I Henry VI) A dish fit for the gods (Julius Caesar) Set my teeth on edge (I Henry IV) Wear my heart upon my sleeve (Othello) In my mind's eye (Hamlet) Shall I compare thee to a summer's day (Sonnets) Tower of strength (Richard III) Jealousy is the green-eyed monster (Othello)
I wonder why you would call him a grammatical genius @Bobby Cole ? Wasn't he rather one in word building? (Among other things).
As to his genius, his works speak for the writer; Literally and loudly. In the time of Shakespeare, Old and Middle English were more common forms of speech although Elizabethan English was making a fairly good entrance. William Shakespeare took the fundamentals of the nouveau way of speaking and built on that foundation to create a greater understanding and with that created something that could be felt and pictured in ways that no other form of the English language could bring about. With around 1500 new phrases and 422 additional words added to the language which, when orated (not read silently) could be understood even though the words and phrases were not familiar. Note: As I alluded to, None of Shakespeare’s works were ever to be read silently but read aloud as though one were standing on a stage. Try it both ways and I’m sure anyone will find it preferable to read aloud because the pictures and emotions that the words emote become clearer and more understandable. In a way, his additional new words brought forth a better meaning to a sentence. If I said, “I bought you a pair of shoes today” it would spark an emotion but if I said, “I bought you a Brand New pair of shoes today” the emotion and understanding in relation to what I did is much greater. I guess one could say that in a world when everything was black, white and grey, he brought with him the grammatical prism out of which an endless amount of possibilities with the written and spoken language appeared. I hope that answers part of the question although I’m not sure what is meant by the second sentence / question Thomas.
This makes me painfully aware of the hole in my education regarding Shakespeare. I had a thick volume of his complete works but found it hard to read and understand. My escaped hamsters got to it in a drawer and chewed up corners of it and I threw it away. I once read some negative comments about his talents but have no background to judge them. I've never attended any of his plays. I was interested in the historical references of some of his plays - is one Richard III? - I forget. Anyway, I will revisit his works as a result of the comments I read here. The more descriptive our language, the better we understand the world, and if Shakespeare contributed to that I want to know more about him.
Yes, it’s King Richard the III. Interestingly enough, the Duchess of York was originally played by....a male. If you’re going to delve into the works of Shakespeare, I can’t stress enough the value of reading aloud. Everything makes a lot more sense and the rhythm of the lines come more naturally than if read silently.
As much as I admire his work and for giving us 'words for thought' I couldn't sit through one of his plays and like Dwight would find reading his work hard to comprehend but when narrowed down - genius of his time
I almost forgot my favorite of his plays, one where I did get a lot out of just reading it and never seeing it performed. King Lear is marvelous. The semi-lucid ravings of Lear on the moor, antagonized by the Fool, and his dismissal of the one loyal daughter's support, are a study of advancing age and loss of power because of age. That's how I read it, anyway.
If I was younger and fitter, I 'd walk the floor reading aloud the words of Shakespeare because I agree with you Bobby would make a difference for sure @Bobby Cole
I love: " All the world's a stage and all the men and women in it merely players." It helps me take the world's goings on less seriously.
Original Pronunciation - Hamlet | To Be, or not to be... Actor and his linguist father try to re-create most likely accent of the original Shakespeare...
Reading it in high school, I could not stay on task. It was like reading a foreign language. But this guy with his inflection and starts and stops makes it easier to understand. (even with his pronunciation of sleep.