Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2021 February 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 20

Translating Shakespeare into "normal" / contemporary English

I am curious: are there any types of software (somewhat akin to Google Translate or such) available that will "translate" Shakespeare into "normal" every-day contemporary English? Thanks, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

There are some listed here - I can't vouch for any of them. You may be interested in the "Contemporary Shakespeare" series edited by A. L. Rowse, which you should be able to find second-hand at reasonable prices. DuncanHill (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think someone should mention that "Shakespeare English" is called Early Modern English. Anything spoken before that would be an Anglo-Saxon dialect. (Sorry, I'm just really fed up of people calling the English of the time "Shakespeare English" or "Ye Olde English"...) --72.234.12.37 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Other than you, no one above -- including myself -- used the term "Shakespeare English". "The works of Shakespeare" and "Early Modern English" are not synonymous. I was specifically asking about translating the works of Shakespeare ... not about translating Early Modern English. Nonetheless, you do make a good -- and valid -- point. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If someone were to ask me about translating Dostoevsky into contemporary English, I would interpret that as translating from the language in which the works of Dostoevsky were written into contemporary English. Likewise, it is entirely reasonable to interpret a question about translating Shakespeare as being about translating from the language in which the works of Shakespeare were written into contemporary English. It is not uncommon to refer to the version of Modern English in which the works of Shakespeare were written as "Shakespeare English", "Shakespearean English" or "Shakespeare's English". There is even a book by the title Shakespeare's English.^[2]  --Lambiam 08:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had acknowledged that the editor raised a valid point. However, his/her objection was to the specific term of "Shakespeare English" ... and I was simply pointing out that no one had used that term, here. But, perhaps, it's reasonable to assume that the term was implied. I personally was concerned with translating Shakespeare, not translating Early Modern English. And, I am sure that we can all agree ... regardless of which language he used, Shakespeare "manipulated" that language to a unique degree. Remember, he was a poet / playwright ... not a documentarian or historian of the Early Modern English language. Within the broad scope of what we call "Early Modern English", Shakespeare utilized / manipulated the language in a unique way. Which is to say -- again -- that "Early Modern English" and "the works of Shakespeare" are not synonymous terms. Though a reasonable inference, my question was directed specifically to the latter. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you see the Dilbert example? Also, for an example of how to translate Shakespeare into "contemporary" English, watch West Side Story and you'll see how well its 1950s jargon holds up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the Dilbert comic. It was hysterical; I had not seen it before now. Thanks. Also, yes, I have seen West Side Story many times. And I love the "Gee, Officer Krupke" song. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The "Dilbert" example is a common misunderstanding (but I suppose you knew that). Just to make the point explicit, the line Wherefore art thou Romeo? (note no comma) means Why are you Romeo? and definitely not Where are you, Romeo? --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I expect that was part of the point Adams was making. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, here we have an example of the pitfalls of the word contemporary. Properly, "contemporary" means "pertaining to the same time", where "same" is indicated by context. So translating Dostoevsky into "contemporary" English should mean English of the time of Dostoevsky. We don't really have a good single word for the English of our time; "modern" is problematic because it includes Early Modern English, and also later variants in a continuum up to the present day. --Trovatore (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a very interesting aside. Thanks for sharing it. So, if we were to translate Shakespeare (i.e., his works) into "contemporary English" ... we'd both start -- and end up with -- the same exact text. Right? In other words, since it is already written in the "English of Shakespeare's day", there'd need be no "translation" at all. Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. "Current" English might be better terminology. And it stands a good chance of showing its age before long, Daddy-o. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Bombshell

I'm interested in the word bombshell. Wiktionary gives three meanings:

• 1. A bomb or artillery shell designed to explode on impact.
• 2. (figuratively) Something that is very surprising, shocking, amazing or sensational.
• 3. (by extension) Someone who is very attractive; sex symbol.

I understand that "shell" is often used to mean a bomb. "The enemy shelled the beach".

Now the meaning of shell in this context is:

• 1. (weaponry) A hollow, usually spherical or cylindrical projectile fired from a siege mortar or a smoothbore cannon. It contains an explosive substance designed to be ignited by a fuse or by percussion at the target site so that it will burst and scatter at high velocity its contents and fragments. Formerly called a bomb.

First of all, if it's hollow, how can it contain an explosive substance, or anything else? I suppose it has to mean "substantially hollow". Put that aside for the moment.

So, when military types talk about bombing something, they use "bombs" or "shells".

But a "bombshell" is something different, surely. I've always understood it to mean the outer casing only, completely hollow, completely inert and safe, and useless as form of artillery. Yet it seems to be used to mean a bomb or a non-hollow shell. Why would they use a word made from two others, when either of those two by themselves would be fine? I'm confused. Calling someone a "Bolivian Bomb" doesn’t have the same ring as "Bolivian Bombshell", but when the word is used, as it mostly is these days, to refer to some breaking news about some scandalous revelation, the word almost means the issue has the appearance of seriousness but actually contains no substance at all. Yet I'm sure that's not what they intend it to mean. I'm still confused. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, it has roots in the 1700s, where it may have killed someone. See [3]. Besides, surely the appearance of a bombshell, say in your back yard or field would cause some alarm, perhaps seem a rather stunning occurrence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

JackofOz,

1. How could it contain an explosive substance if it weren't hollow? Pretty well all containers are hollow.

   Not when they contain something. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

   Authors appear to have few qualms in writing phrases of the form "a hollow container filled with <content>".^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]} Some of these are specifically about bombshells. One might object that the attribute "hollow" is pleonastic. If it ain't hollow, it is not a container and you can't fill it.  --Lambiam 11:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack of Oz seems to be caught up in the idea that 'hollow' has to mean the same as 'empty'. I have no problem with hollow meaning 'provided with a cavity' regardless of whether said cavity is filled with something or empty. But I aknowledge that a 'bomb that is hollow like a shell" should be called a shellbomb and not a bombshell, which properly only describes the outer, hollow casing of some bomb. Except of course if it is a case of pars pro toto where the bomb's casing pleonastically denotes the whole bomb. 2003:F5:6F0D:1A00:A0F2:DC85:E023:80A3 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Marco PB

Exactly. Thanks for understanding. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

1. I've always understood it to mean the outer casing only, completely hollow, completely inert and safe, and useless as form of artillery.. Judging by the definitions you've quoted, you've always understood wrong.
2. the word almost means the issue has the appearance of seriousness but actually contains no substance at all: see etymological fallacy. --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In a historic military context, projectiles fired from a mortar (weapon) were called "bombs". Originally, these were solid metal or stone, but when a means was devised in the 16th century to make hollow ones which could be filled with explosive and ignited by a simple fuze, the term "bomb-shell" was adopted to distinguish them from the solid kind. 'The figurative sense of "shattering or devastating thing or event" is attested by 1859'. The use of bombs by aeroplanes is obviously much later and I've never heard "bombshell" used in the context of an air-dropped weapon. Now that all mortar ammunition is explosive, the term bomb is used exclusively. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

When gunners need not be told where to aim, because the natural target is obvious to all of them, we call that a shelling point. —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)