The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0313 Monday, 26 July 2010
[1] From: David Evett <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: July 23, 2010 1:07:32 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin
[2] From: Mario A. DiCesare <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: July 23, 2010 1:11:02 PM EDT
Subj: ShakesPalin
[3] From: Aaron Azlant <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: July 23, 2010 1:27:27 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin
[4] From: John W Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: July 23, 2010 2:08:03 PM EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Evett <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: July 23, 2010 1:07:32 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin
I'm curious to know if Elliott and Valenza attend to meter as a factor in
Shakespearean (or other verse) coinage. Need an extra syllable? Why not "casted"
rather than "cast"? (Nowadays, of course, the astonishingly rapid disappearance of
irregular verbs even from former bastions of tradition like the New York Times robs
the discussion of any point. I don't know what I'd do about that if I were still
marking student papers. Or, indeed, about that subjunctive I just used.)
Dave Evett
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mario A. DiCesare <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: July 23, 2010 1:11:02 PM EDT
Subject: ShakesPalin
In their politically-charged discussion of Shakespeare's language, Ward Elliott and
Robert Valenza suggest that some recent studies may well "dislodge the myth of
Shakespeare's outsized inventory of words and coinages." I suggest that political
zeal has carried them away. Nothing in their piece argues, by any stretch of the
imagination, that Shakespeare's "inventory of words and coinages" is not outsized.
Certainly not the "inventory of words."
I guess they have some grounds to erect a PalinDefense; that whole subject seems to
me sophomoric.
Mario A. DiCesare
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Azlant <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: July 23, 2010 1:27:27 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin
ref. Ward E. Y. Elliott and Robert J. Valenza's quasi-defense of George W. and Sarah
Palin:
It strikes me as perfectly legitimate to hold politicians and playwrights to
differing tolerances for word-coinage. Additionally, intent matters. Nobody ever
confuses Dogberry for Falstaff.
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John W Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: July 23, 2010 2:08:03 PM EDT
Subject: 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin
Comment: Re: SHK 21.0304 FYI: ShakesPalin
Ward Elliott <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
> writes,
>When Bush comes up with "Bushisms" like subsidation, analyzation,
>hopefuller, more few, and explorationists, we suppose that he is
>struggling to follow accepted rules of word formation but has
>gotten in over his head. Everyone sniffs at such gaffes, and no
>one praises them as additions to the language
>(http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/). If Bush gave us words like
>insultment, omittance, opulency, revengive, thoughten, more better,
>or casted, these would likewise be gathered and laughed at as
>"Bushisms." But it was not Bush who gave us the second set, it was
>Shakespeare -- and his gaffes are hailed as brilliant landmarks of
>"linguistic daring," fresh evidence of his peerless mastery of the
>language, 24-carat coinages for Shakespeare that would be dismissed
>as pot-metal if they came from Bush, Palin, or anyone else. It
>seems like a double standard to us.
The difference between Shakespeare and Bush is that Shakespeare was a great poet,
writing in a time of linguistic flux, whereas Bush is merely a fool who, when he
can't remember the right word, makes one up, sometimes with some small justification
("analyzation"), sometimes with less ("misunderestimate").
Palin, however, does not even live up to Bush's standard. "Refudiate" is not a
credible English word at all. (The media do not seem to have noticed her subsequent
abuse of the word "refute", possibly because half of them have been guilty of the
same act of verbicide within the last six months.)
John W Kennedy
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail 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.
|
