Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2013 :: March ::
Question Regarding Pronunciation of “quit” as Shortened Version of “requite” . . .

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0140  Friday, 29 March 2013

 

[1] From:         Gabriel Egan < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         March 26, 2013 7:15:37 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: Rom. quit 

 

[2] From:         Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         March 27, 2013 12:12:34 AM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Rom. Quit 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Gabriel Egan < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         March 26, 2013 7:15:37 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: Rom. quit

 

Responding to my query about why Larry Weiss thinks the Folio text of Hamlet was printed from its Q3, Weiss gives references that support the claim that the Folio text of Romeo and Juliet was printed from its Q3. The talking at cross-purposes is my fault, as I mistakenly thought we were discussing Hamlet. I apologize for wasting his time.

 

Gabriel Egan

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         March 27, 2013 12:12:34 AM EDT

Subject:      Re: SHAKSPER: Rom. Quit

 

In response to my observation that 

 

>Q2, which is the better text, has “quit.” Q1 is a bad quarto, and 

>F1 seems to have been printed from Q3, which doesn’t have 

>substantive authority. However, I agree that the word means 

>“requite,” but this can be noted in a commentary note. If an 

>editor adopts “quite” s/he should probably spell it “'quite” to 

>indicate that it is a clipped form.

 

Steve Urk...owitz asked the musical question 

 

>Might (pronounced “mitt?”) it not be a better idea for the 

>editorial community to invite (pronounced “invitt”?) its 

>readers to accept the vagaries of so much early spelling 

>and just leave ‘em alone unless a serious problem erupts?

 

I think we are in agreement.  As I thought I had said, the best copytext is Q2, which has “quit,” a plausible reading—see my later conjecture of “quit” as in “acquit,” and never forget dificilior lectio—so I would not emend it.  As for “quite,” all I said was that if (much virtue in that word) an editor chooses to emend to “quite,” the word should be spelled (pronounced spelt) with an initial apostrophe to signify the clipped syllable.  I do not regard the apostrophe as an emendation, as it does not alter the word.  I think editors have fairly wide latitude in altering pointing and diacritical accidentals for the sake of clarity when that doesn’t alter the meaning.  Otherwise, we would read nothing but facsimiles and diplomatic original spelling editions.

 

I don’t suppose this post will see the light of day until after the SAA, by which time Steve and I might both be in a Canadian jail (gaol?) for feloniously hurling bad jokes at each other. Hardy, please being bail (baol?) money.

 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.