2004

Pronunciation

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1517  Thursday, 12 August 2004

[1]     From:   Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 11 Aug 2004 12:21:28 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1503 Pronunciation

[2]     From:   Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 11 Aug 2004 10:28:54 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1503 Pronunciation


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Aug 2004 12:21:28 +0100
Subject: 15.1503 Pronunciation
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1503 Pronunciation

Might be a bit early for you, and the second one is daunting, but try
the chapter on phonology in

Charles Barber, 1997, Early Modern English (2nd edition) (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press)

then the standard work

E.J. Dobson, 1968, English Pronunciation 1500-1700 (two volumes, second
edition) (Oxford: Clarendon Press)

There are also chapters in the relevant volumes of the Cambridge History
of the English Language (general ed. Richard Hogg).

Jonathan Hope
Strathclyde University, Glasgow

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Norman Hinton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Aug 2004 10:28:54 -0500
Subject: 15.1503 Pronunciation
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1503 Pronunciation

Dobson, E. J. (Eric John)
Title:     English pronunciation 1500-1700, by E. J. Dobson.
Edition:     2nd ed.
Published:     Oxford, Clarendon P., 1968.
Physical Description:     2 v. facsims. 25 cm.

Contents:     v. 1. Survey of the sources.--v. 2. Phonology.
Bibliography (p. [1011]-1019)
Subject (LCSH):     English language--Pronunciation
English language--Phonology, Historical
ISBN:     0198119313

Library of Congress Call Number:     PE1137 .D581968

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Chadwyk-Healey Database (LION)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1516  Thursday, 12 August 2004

[1]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 11 Aug 2004 12:57:58 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1505 Chadwyk-Healey Database (LION)

[2]     From:   Mac Jackson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Aug 2004 13:21:36 +1200
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.1505 Chadwyk-Healey Database (LION)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Aug 2004 12:57:58 +0100
Subject: 15.1505 Chadwyk-Healey Database (LION)
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1505 Chadwyk-Healey Database (LION)

The Lion commands are 'fire near.6 water' or 'fire fby.6 water' - where
'near' will give words either side, 'fby' is followed by, and the .n
indicates the limit on the number of words intervening (I think 10 is
the default and the maximum).  The real problem comes when one wants to
search old-spelling texts where there may be variant spellings of either
or both terms. In the earliest CD-ROM manifestation of LION it was
possible, using brackets, to list variant spellings for each of the
terms and to combine them in searches.  In the Web version this is not
possible, and using truncation symbols produces very variable effects,
which I have not managed to predict with any certainty (sometimes they
just seem to refuse to work in combined searches). LION has made some
steps to overcome problems with searching old-spelling texts, but I
would have thought this is an area where much more could be done in time
so that, for example, a search for 'music' would pick up 'musick',
'musicke' etc. but would not pick up 'musician', etc., , as using a
truncation symbol currently does.

LION is a very useful resource, but, as has been remarked before on this
list, it is not without its serious limitations.

David Lindley

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mac Jackson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Aug 2004 13:21:36 +1200
Subject: 15.1505 Chadwyk-Healey Database (LION)
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.1505 Chadwyk-Healey Database (LION)

To find collocations of "fire" and "water" through LION, you just need
to key into the search box: "fire NEAR water". That will find
collocations within the default 10 words (more or less, because line
endings count in the system as a word or two). You can search a wider
area with "fire NEAR.20 water" OR "fire NEAR.30 water" OR whatever you
like, even "fire NEAR.800 water". It has always worked for me. To be
sure of getting any spellings of "fire" as "fyre" you can key in "f?re
NEAR water", and if you want to be sure of getting plurals you can enter
"f?re* NEAR water*".

Mac Jackson

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Your Name Key To Sexiness

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1514  Thursday, 12 August 2004

From:           Richard Burt <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Aug 2004 19:27:08 -0400
Subject:        Your Name Key To Sexiness

Researcher: Your name key to sexiness
Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Posted: 2:28 PM EDT (1828 GMT)

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- As Shakespeare said, a rose by any other
name would smell as sweet. Right?

Wrong.

Scientists say the right name can make you sexier.

Linguist Amy Perfors of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology posted
photos of men and women on the U.S. Web site "Hot or Not," which lets
viewers rate pictures according to how attractive they find them.

When she posted the same pictures with different names, she found that
the attractiveness scores went up and down depending on the vowels, the
London-based magazine New Scientist reported.

Men with "front vowels" in their names -- sounds formed at the front of
the mouth like the "a" in Matt -- were considered sexier than men with
"back vowel" sounds like the "au" in Paul, she concluded.

The opposite held for women, who were sexier with back vowels than front
ones.

Perfors said front vowels are often perceived as "smaller" than back
vowels, so the difference could be a sign that women are seeking men
that are sensitive or gentle, traits usually perceived as feminine.

But men who might be thinking of taking more feminine names to become
sexier should be careful not to go too far: men with women's names were
rated least sexy of all

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/11/names.reut/index.html

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Hamlet and the White Cribs of Dover

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1515  Thursday, 12 August 2004

From:           Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 12 Aug 2004 01:04:53 EDT
Subject:        Hamlet and the White Cribs of Dover

When Arden 2 editor Harold Jenkins discusses the use of Q1 Hamlet in the
printing of Q2, he cites Dover Wilson's authority in his Manuscript of
Shakespeare's Hamlet (1934), where Wilson suggests of the evidence that
"The clue, I say, was first put into my hands by Dr Greg" (158), and
later refers to relevant publications by Greg in 1928 and 1933. These
dates correspond well enough to Wilson's prefatory statement on the
opinions expressed by Sir Edmund Chambers in 1930:

    I deliberately avoided reading this section of his book until I had
finished
    my own. . . . I note in particular that he anticipates my explanation of
    the bibliographical links between Q2 and Q1 in act I. (xvii)

Whether readers of the age credulously accepted that Wilson had not read
Chambers before completing his published view -- one significantly
differing from his 1918 opinion -- he claims the hypothesis as his own
(162), with at least some success.

In a postscript to his 1924 discussion of Q1 in The Text of
Shakespeare's Hamlet, B A P Van Dam extensively criticizes Dover
Wilson's 1918 articles in The Library, and includes his opinion that Q2
was a partial reprint of Q1:

    A long time before the publication of Prof. Pollard's discovery [of
Q1 - Q2
    correspondence] the fact of the very limited identity had been
discovered
    by us [B, A, & P]. We felt little surprise at it . . . because on
the title page
    of the Q2 of Hamlet, just as on . . . Romeo and Juliet, we may read that
    Q2 is a kind of reprint. . . . In our opinion it means that the
printer of Q2
    may have had before him both the MS and the printed Q1 and may have
    made use of both. (70)

Van Dam is much more explicit in a later chapter:

    [T]he two editions have in common not only peculiar spellings . . . but
    also various mistakes, which show that the younger Q2 is partly founded
    on the older Q1. We mention the line-shiftings . . . the
transposition . . .
    the misprints . . . (177)

    [A]s has already been pronounced . . . by Prof. Dowden (see Halliwell-
    Phillipps's Outlines p. 274), there is hardly anything left for us
to assume
    but that the compositor of Q2 printed from the manuscript; but he had
    also Q1 before him . . . . After the first act . . . consulting Q1
was of
    hardly any use . . . . (178)

Dover Wilson notes, "My impression is that it was consultation only and
that it would be going much too far to suppose that act I of Q2 was
printed from corrected copy of Q1." (161)

Is it going too far to suppose that Dover Wilson got his hypothesis from
his critic? In his preface, Wilson acknowledges that he has "learnt
from" Van Dam (xvii), but that his "methods differ." Well, I'm convinced.

Gerald E. Downs

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Henslowe's 'ne

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1513  Thursday, 12 August 2004

From:           Chris Whatmore <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 11 Aug 2004 22:12:18 +0100
Subject:        Henslowe's 'ne'

I'm working my way through the Foakes 2nd edition of Henslowe's Diary
and was wondering whether the unexplained annotation 'ne' might have
been referring to the box office receipts rather than directly to the
plays themselves. Is there a readily accessible discussion of this,
other than in Foakes' own introduction? As Foakes points out, the
receipts for the 'ne' days were significantly higher than average, which
suggests that for whatever reason, Henslowe pocketed more than his usual
half share of the gallery takings on these occasions. (At any rate, this
seems a more likely explanation than higher entrance charges or bigger
crowds.) If Henslowe received 100% of the galleries on 'ne' days instead
of 50%, then rather than being an abbreviation of 'new' or 'newly
licensed' (or even, as I've seen it suggested in the SHAKSPER archives,
'Newington Butts'), 'ne' might simply mean 'net' (or 'nett' or 'neat')
in the sense of "free from, or not subject to, any deduction" (OED).
This meaning would be consistent with the disappearance of 'ne' after
July 1598, when Henslowe began to take 100% of the gallery receipts from
every performance - although, since his practice of naming each
individual play also ceased from this date, it does not of course rule
out the traditional assumption that 'ne' referred to the plays rather
than the money. cw

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.