> The well-known linguist John McWhorter argues that Shakespeare's plays should be translated into modern English since they are written in a language that we effectively no longer speak.
Shakespeare is modern enough to be understandable by any english speaker. What shakespeare requires isn't a translation but annotation for the cultural/historical/etc references and archaic words.
> "Indeed, the irony today is that the Russians, the French and other people in foreign countries possess Shakespeare to a much greater extent than we do, for the simple reason that unlike us, they get to enjoy Shakespeare in the language they speak."
I don't think you can truly enjoy shakespeare in a language other than english. After all, the value in shakespeare isn't the plot, but the language.
> However, we would never complain a translation of Beowulf 'isn’t Beowulf'
I would. But it isn't worth learning old english just to read a book. It is worth reading a bit of annotation for shakespeare.
Certainly this 'well-known linguist' isn't equating the difficulty of reading beowulf with hamlet?
Shakespeare is modern enough to be understandable by any english speaker. What shakespeare requires isn't a translation but annotation for the cultural/historical/etc references and archaic words.
> "Indeed, the irony today is that the Russians, the French and other people in foreign countries possess Shakespeare to a much greater extent than we do, for the simple reason that unlike us, they get to enjoy Shakespeare in the language they speak."
I don't think you can truly enjoy shakespeare in a language other than english. After all, the value in shakespeare isn't the plot, but the language.
> However, we would never complain a translation of Beowulf 'isn’t Beowulf'
I would. But it isn't worth learning old english just to read a book. It is worth reading a bit of annotation for shakespeare.
Certainly this 'well-known linguist' isn't equating the difficulty of reading beowulf with hamlet?