/lit/ - Literature

Show some examples.

>>11542468
He uses you when he should use ye a bunch.
Mixes up yes and yea a lot and no and nay.
And I just saw a double negative, in the first page of the merchant of Venice, too.
Tbqh if anything it shows that Shakespeare indeed did write the plays and not the more educated people that some have suggested.

>>11542468
Also messing up who and whom:
>Who wouldst thou serve?"; "To who, my lord?" (King Lear l.iv.24, V.iii. 249); "Who does he accuse?" (Antony and Cleopatra Ill.vi.23)
Mistakes in comparative adjectives too. Example:
>Dispose of her
>To some more fitter place, and that with speed.

its called poetry you mong

>>11542534
What does that have to do with anything? The grammar mistakes weren’t to make it rhyme nor to make the meter work. They were just legitimate mistakes. Poetry is not a license for illiteracy.

Shakespeare predates your grammar "rules" prescriptivist scum

>>11542551
Could it just be that he knew the grammar rules but wrote in an intentionally incorrect and more believable conversational tone?

>>11542514
no one actually uses the word whom, its like a massive injoke for the rest of society to see whom are the pretentious cunts

>>11542558
Academics of the time followed the grammar rules properly.
>>11542564
>too intelligent to use correct grammar
Seems unlikely, even the people of royalty of his plays make the mistakes; when educated people wouldn’t.

>>11542575
I use whom, and not to be a dick. Saying “to who” or “for who” or something of the sort just sounds wrong. Maybe it depends on where you’re raised or who raised you.

>>11542587
shakespeare was a man of the people, not an academic

>>11542514
>>Dispose of her
Which is correct.
>>To some more fitter place, and that with speed.
more + -er is correct and used for emphasis you tard. For example, you are more dumber than rocks.

>>11542467
>read the works of the greatest writer in history
>ignore everything except the fact that he didn't follow 21st century standard English grammar

>>11542587
>Seems unlikely, even the people of royalty of his plays make the mistakes; when educated people wouldn’t.
Are you saying that educated people never fuck up "who" and "whom", or start a sentence intending to refer to a singular direct object, change their mind, and end up referring to a plural with "is"?

If you actually paid attention when speaking and listening to people you would realize that everybody makes grammatical mistakes in casual conversation without knowing it. As Trollope said, if you were to write dialogue the way people actually spoke, readers would think you were trying to be funny.

>>11542467
this is obviously b8, but just in case
1 the rules of language in shakespeare's time were different from now. the great vowel shift was still happening, the spellings of words were different in different dialects, syntax and grammar were different too
2 shakespeare was writing for actors, not readers. the plays are instructions for how they should be played
3 many of the characters are commoners who would have spoken differently from the upper classes, therefore shakespeare is writing their parts as they would have been spoken
4 you're an utter fucking idiot

>>11542467
The most important thing in judging the grammatical validity of a sentence is how it sounds. If it doesn't SOUND good, it's wrong, even if all the grammarians in the world can find no fault with it. If it does sound good, on the other hand, a good writer will use it no matter what the grammarians might say, and they will have to modify their grammar afterwards to account for how he used it. Speaking comes first, even historically, and grammar much later, not the other way around, as Chomsky and his followers still seem unable to understand. Woe to the race of beings who waited for grammarians to invent a language before they began to talk! Woe to the child who must learn their rules before being allowed to open its mouth and say "mommy"! Language is a living thing, and what the Chomskyans are busy "analyzing" is so unreal it's not even dead. Theory comes AFTER action, not the other way around, and a priori knowledge of the kind which all philosophers (aside from our lord and master) have been hitherto fond of is no concept that can be grasped at all but a contradictio in adjecto.

>>11542467
Grammar is a spook. There is only art.

>>11542564
>"more believable conversational tone"
>while writing concetti in iambic pentameter
Pick one, bucko

>>11542773
You're a pretentious faggot and misinterpreting Chomsky so badly it's not even funny.
>Theory comes AFTER action
Recent artistic movements undermine this statement.

>>11542591
Many people don't use "whom" that often because whenever possible they just put "who" at the beginning of the sentence/phrase and the preposition at the end. For example: "my neighbor, who we gave the keys to while we were gone" instead of "my neighbor, to whom we gave the keys while we were gone".

Most American English speakers (including myself) never use "whom" in questions. "Whom did you see?" or "whom did you give it to?"/"to whom did you give it?" just sound wrong compared to "who did you see?" or "who did you give it to?"

>>11542740
Dispose of her was part of the quote.
More fitter is not correct. Idiot.
>>11542745
The grammar rules he messed up were present at the time.
>>11542770
1. The rules I speak of were from his time. Ye should be nominative, you oblique. Same with who vs whom. He messed up yea vs yes, which is from his time. And he had double negatives. All whereof where from his time.
2. Okay, he wanted bad grammar for the academics in his play?
3. Even the upper class made mistakes in his plays.
4. You’re an idiot. Don’t get so sensitive just because your idol is being criticized.

>>11542876
>where from
I meant were.
I correct my typo mistakes, why didn’t he?

>>11542876
the players of shakespeare's time were not "academics". nor, apart from a select few, were his audience

>>11542489
> you and ye
These mean the same thing, since 'ye' was being replaced by 'you' anyway.
> yes and yea, no and nay
Still to this day mean the same thing. And quite common.
> double negatives
These are fine; even the Anglo-Saxons used them.
>>11542514
> who and whom
Just like modern-day speakers, then.
> more fitter
Just like modern-day speakers, then.

>>11542575
> to see whom are the pretentious cunts
If you're going to mock a 'rule', at least know it yourself. This shows you don't actually know what you're talking about.

>>11542514
Who/whom is just that. Not even Shakespeare uses whom correctly.

>Dispose of her
The of here is added to maintain meter. Without the of, you have two stressed syllables right next to each other.

>that
I think he's referring to the act, not the place. So that would be a correct referential to the action of disposing

>>11542892
I meant the characters themselves.
Maybe academics is a strong word for his characters, but many of them were supposed to be highly educated.

>>11542902
The mistake in the second quote I was highlight was “more fitter”, I just included “dispose of her” for context.

>>11542910
>highlight
Highlighting.
My b :(

>>11542902
>The of here is added to maintain meter. Without the of, you have two stressed syllables right next to each other.
It's part of the phrase. What, have you never watched a gangster movie where the boss orders a character to "dispose of" someone? "Dispose of" = get rid of.

>>11542791
>Recent artistic movements undermine this statement
Which ones?

>>11542900
>If you're going to mock a 'rule', at least know it yourself. This shows you don't actually know what you're talking about.

its obviously a joke

>>11542900
Okay but you can’t write of the mistakes as ok just because a large portion of people make the mistake too. If he’s to be the one whom we praise as English’s best writer, he should at least get English right.
If anything his plays helped popularize the bad grammar in it and not using “thou” nor “ye”, thereby degrading the language.

>>11542968
>write of
write off.
That’s unfortunate

>>11542968
He's not praised because he had impeccable grammar.

And there's no such thing as 'degrading language'.

>>11542987
>not praised for grammar
Fair enough, but he should have decent grammar, and many if not most common people think his English is proper English.
>no such thing as “degrading language”
>t. new age linguist from new age university
Languages can be degraded. English is a prime example of it.

>>11542467
There was literally no such thing as The English Language as we would commonly recognise it until the mid-late eighteenth century, when the likes of Dr Johnson made attempts to systematise what was (and, let’s face it, is) a constantly changing system. It’s even more moronic to fault the likes of Shakespeare when so many of the rules and words that we take for granted today emerged from his pen, as he was making it up as he went along.

>>11542968
His metaphors and general word choice still far and away surpass any other poet of the language. Would his use of crude phrases and oaths also invalidate this? His characters often used speech-isms that wouldn't necessarily appear in formal writing. 'sblood! and the like.

>>11543016
To go on, his dialogue would, in many places, make for fairly natural speech at the time I think. (exluding of course the crazy overuse of figurative language and long soliloquies in iambic pentameter)

>>11543013
English royalty figures were always making attempts to standardize the language. The earliest modern English standardization I can recall of was by the Tudors.
I’m not that well-versed in English history (or at least for this time period) but I highly doubt that institutions around the country didn’t have a standardize English which they taught their pupils.

>>11542968
>yeah man, let's just ignore the works of one of the greatest poets and dramatists in history because his works contain a few grammatical irregularities

>>11543006
>he should have decent grammar
He did. His players and audience understood him well enough to enjoy his plays.
> most common people think his English is proper English
They literally do not.

> Languages can be degraded. English is a prime example of it.
Bullshit. People have 'complained' about 'language degeneracy' since language was first born. Modern English speakers complain, Chaucer complained, Cicero complained about Latin, etc, etc.

There was probably some PIE speaker complaining about how his precious postpositions became lowly case-endings. Without those 'degradations' there would be no English at all.

Shit's retarded.

>>11542467
Maybe because the grammar of the script isn't as important as the content of the story in a play, you fucking retard.

>>11543006
>>t. new age linguist from new age university
And PS.

I'm possibly the biggest prescriptivist ever. But that doesn't stop me from accepting that languages must constantly evolve.

>>11543036
Didn’t say that. He’s still a great poet in mine eyes.
>few
There were many.
>>11543044
>they literally do not
They literally do.
>Bullshit. People have 'complained' about 'language degeneracy' since language was first born. Modern English speakers complain, Chaucer complained, Cicero complained about Latin, etc, etc.
Tell me, how is losing the ability to compactly distinguish between plural and singular second person is not degradation?
>There was probably some PIE speaker complaining about how his precious postpositions became lowly case-endings. Without those 'degradations' there would be no English at all.
Yeah I get that when I complain about more esoteric stuff disappearing like useful noun cases or the dual grammatical number or a proper vast array of verb conjugations, I sound like I’m just telling you to get off my lawn, but at some point when actual communication is hindered, one has to admit a degradation has occurred.

This has to be bait, please let it be bait
>they're works of creative fiction, not factual texts that demand standardized writing
>grammar hadn't even begun to be standardized at the time
>english TO THIS DAY doesn't have a real standard

>>11542467
I understand that you're baiting, but I'd still be embarrassed to have to write something so stupid.

>>11542467
The old English of Shakespeare is not the old English in a textbook of today
Since there were way less resources when it came to grammar, spelling, and general linguistics, there's a lot of variation between texts and modern interpretation

>>11543044
>Bullshit. People have 'complained' about 'language degeneracy' since language was first born. Modern English speakers complain, Chaucer complained, Cicero complained about Latin, etc, etc.
Just because people complained about it in the past doesn't mean that they were wrong. Language degenerates without the intervention of writers. Chaucer noticed that Middle English was not respected as a literary vernacular, so he wrote the first major poem in that language; Cicero created one of the purest and most influential styles of Latin, standardizing the language in the process; Borges disliked the naturally florid, oratorical, Baroque style of Spanish-language literature, and therefore invented a prose style that had never before been seen in Spanish etc etc etc.

>>11543080
>they're works of creative fiction, not factual texts that demand standardized writing
When your favorite fiction author makes a typo or a grammar mistake, his or her editors catch it and fix it.
>grammar hadn’t begun to standardize
Not even sure what you mean by this. If you mean the bad grammar was dialectical, he wasn’t from somewhere that spoke yola or anything; if you mean standardization on a governmental or academic level, yes there were standardization attempts that predate him.
>English to this day doesn’t have a real standard
Depends what you mean by “real”, I guess.

>>11543086
>I don’t have any good arguments but you criticized someone I revere so I’ll just say you’re baiting

>>11543069
>how is losing the ability to compactly distinguish between plural and singular second person is not degradation?
Because the majority of speakers didn't think it was necessary. (And still don't.)

When has communication been 'hindered'? Yeah, never.

'You two' is fine for the dual; remembering a whole other set of pronouns and conjugation endings for it is not.

>>11543091
I don't disagree with you.

But you must admit that language evolution has *always* been a battle between the two forces of conservatism and evolution. Prescriptivists have played, and do play, their part; and so do the inventors.

I'm only disagreeing with the guy above lamenting the 'degeneracy' of language evolution.

>>11542942
Most of them? Just look at the early 20th century, every new movement kicked off with a big, pompous manifesto, rather than a text (novel, collection of poetry) that would be the model for the following works.

>>11543006
Most non-english speakers who have been culturally cucked by anglos find their languages to be inferior to English and praise its melody and wide vocabulary. So much for your "degradation".

>>11543069
>Tell me, how is losing the ability to compactly distinguish between plural and singular second person is not degradation?
It simplifies the language, which is a plus (easier to learn). Functionally there doesn't seem to be many problems here, I've never seen a misunderstanding occur because of this "problem". Seriously, can you remember any such case?
>but at some point when actual communication is hindered
If it actually is hindered, the language will evolve and find a solution. Or not make the problem in the first place, because people don't make up deviations from the norm to cause problems to their communication.

>>11543091
>Chaucer
So, he used a supposedly bad "degenerate" language and showed how it is equally capable of great art and expression as Latin. Not really an argument in your favor.
The other two writers you mention are completely irrelevant. Cicero's language became standard, that doesn't make it inherently superior to an alternative. Borges' style was a response to other writing styles, both of which are literary languages rather than the natural spoken language. Again, irrelevant.

>>11543113
Language “evolves” via people using it incorrectly.
Hardcore prescriptivists would say that that’s just immigrants or invaders degrading it.
Apologetic linguists would says something about how change is natural for a language so it doesn’t matter.
In the end I agree more with the prescriptivists because one can objectively measure the loss of complexity/communication/eloquence or what have you.
But hey, if someone agrees with the linguist there really isn’t anything I can do to change his mind.

>the virgin ressentiment-filled rule-following grammar cuck vs the Chad divine voiced rule-making artist

>>11543134
You can be both

>>11543133
I agree and would say that I am a prescriptivist too, but saying there has been a 'loss of complexity' is nonsense.

English has become more and more complex, by an immense amount, over the centuries due to technology, culture, etc.

You try explaining the Linux kernel to Chaucer, or Pepe the Frog to Shakespeare.

Reminder that "incorrect grammar" just means "different from how I speak" and that if you insist otherwise you're a brainlet.

>>11542587
>academics of the time
what, in 1600?
Ive no idea what this could even mean, cambridge theologians who didnt even write english?

>>11542467
Why does the grammar matter in particular? As one Anon stated, that the words of the play were simply instructions for the actors. Even as you would say, even the upper classes of each play had poor grammar written into them, wouldn't matter because the majority of play viewers would like to understand what the actors saying.

Also too, we should look into the fact that language is a constant fluid thing, and that language itself is always changing and the way its pronounced and sounds may differ from the way its written and its layout. For example, as you say, his grammar is atrocious, by firstly modern standards of standardized English writing, and secondly by the idea that that something written down, and the way its pronounced aloud with context to the rest of the sentence may be entirely different. Sure the grammar is poor, but the way it's said makes sense and can be considered wonderful.

Joyce for example did away with many grammar rules and he's considered one of the finest prose writers of the 20th century. Language isn't a standardized systematic layout that ought to be followed to produce the highest level of how its written, but rather is the fluid construction of how words and sounds come together to produce something beautiful.

tl;dr Shakespeare is good even though he didn't follow grammar rules because language doesnt work like that

>>11543146
vocab has expanded but grammar and especially alphabets are much simpler

>>11543146
That complexity isn’t by virtue of the rules of the language, just a more developed, globalized world. IMO if any other language had become the global lingua franca, it too would’ve gained all the variety of English.

>>11543156
>and the way its pronounced aloud with context to the rest of the sentence may be entirely different.

I doubt most modern people could understand a word of early modern spoken english...even a strong contemporary west country accent isnt easy for ppl from other regions of uk

>>11543157
>alphabets
You mean the loss of all the vowel words and runes in English? Not that big a deal tbqh, orthography in English is messed up beyond belief and would be better with the original alphabet, but after a year in elementary school most people get it so whatever.

>>11543155
>what, in 1600?
>Ive no idea what this could even mean, cambridge theologians who didnt even write english?

Anon.. are you retarded. Although I don't necessarily agree with OP, I think your retardation is even greater.

Lets begin. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Francis Bacon, Robert Hooke, William Penn, Robert Boyle, George Berkeley, Thomas Browne, William Petty, and to top it off.

ISSAC FUCKING NEWTON.

Anon your sheer retardation is out of this fucking world.

>>11543172
You mean spoken out loud? Reading the King James Bible is easy if there are annotations for the weird words, but in terms of the spoken accent, idk.
I heard a “reconstructed” Early Modern English accent with the original vowel emphasis and it wasn’t incredibly hard to understand.
That being said I can’t understand what some of these rural Irish farmers are saying for the life of me.
Example:
https://youtu.be/Q47CuQX0gn8

>>11543144
you can't really be a virgin and a Chad, and you can't really make rules without breaking them, and good luck writing something inspired if you're going to worry about grammar like a fucking pussy

>>11543157
Perhaps the grammar simplified *because* the vocabulary is so gigantic?

The fact that there is are two words for everything (English and Norman French/Latinate), the rise in technology, trade, law, etc., would tax anyone's brain. Having genders and conjugations on top of this would be too much, perhaps.

German also has been losing the dative and genitive for a long time, being replaced with prepositions like in English. French and Spanish have done away entirely with declensions. So this 'degeneracy' is not limited to English.

>>11543189
>you can't really be a virgin and a Chad

What if you're a imperative principle based Christian solider who remains celibate to focus his life on Christ and His cause.

We're at a stand still.

>>11543189
I’m a virgin chad.
Have turned down numerous women.
Am 6’2’’ with a big dick.
I will write a great epic one day after I’m done with school that’ll have correct grammar.

>>11543202
>>11543196
Chad doesn't let spooks like that interrupt his pussy crusade

>>11543207
Theres more to life then pussy anon...

Thats probably why you get none >:)

>>11543215
I get none because I'm a virgin crusader.

>>11543186
Non of them are academics.

Intellectual // academic

An academic is part of the 'academy' (the clue is in the title), a Professor or teacher publishing and lecturing in the higher education system. The only equivalent at that time would have been, as said above, Oxford/Cambridge seminary school, which used latin

>>11543207
Chad is a state of being, not a count of how much pussy one has.
>>11543156
>Why does the grammar matter in particular? As one Anon stated, that the words of the play were simply instructions for the actors. Even as you would say, even the upper classes of each play had poor grammar written into them, wouldn't matter because the majority of play viewers would like to understand what the actors saying.
The audience would still understand what was being said if had had good grammar. When you hear "whom" it's not like you suddenly can't understand what's being said.
>Language is fluid, it's okay that grammar is poor because that's how some people talk
That's just a completely different mindset from what I'm arguing from. A good writer uses good language, IMO. Yeah you can say good is subjective and the english spoken in the hood in south chicago is just as good as proper english, but in this context, I really don't think it is.

>>11543247
> A good writer uses good language, IMO
A good writer knows both worlds, and writes to his audience.

This is why all writers should know the rules first, before breaking them.

>>11543146
English is exponentially less complex than it used to be. Look at Beowulf.

3 genders
5 grammatical cases
adjective declension for case and gender
noun declension

It goes on and on. Thats just the nature of more people using a language, they have to simpfily.

>You try explaining the Linux kernel to Chaucer

This has nothing to do with language though. Ask a native in the amazon to explain some principle of their society that we dont understand. Its the same thing. The only argument against this is a form of post-modernist extreme relativism...ie nothing can be 'ranked' by any measure, any attempts to differentiate are politically motivated etc

>>11543271
>Thats just the nature of more people using a language
You can have a lot of people speaking a language and not have it degrade. Russian for example retains much of its grammar from languages of yore.
OE changed because invaders and settlers came to england and spoke broken english, and their children hence spoke broken english which eventually became correct english.

>>11543271
And Old English was less complex than Proto-Germanic, which was less complex than PIE, which was less complex than... ad nauseam.

And yet they all spoke to each other fine.

>The only argument against this is a form of post-modernist extreme relativism
This is a strawman. You're confusing language evolution with the other 'degeneracies' much-lamented.

Languages cannot be 'ranked' since what is the measure of ranking? How many cases it has? Well, what is the point of case? To communicate. Every single language in the world has this ability, otherwise it wouldn't be a language.

Languages evolve, whether you like it or not, to suit the speakers. If the speakers think that three genders or five cases are unnecessary, then they will disappear. If the disappearance in any way affected a speaker's ability to communicate, they would be kept.

Much like how 'thou' has been retained in Northern England because speakers there think it is still necessary, whereas the rest of the world do not. Does the rest of the world suffer due to this? Not at all.

>>11542968
The absolute fucking state of your mind. You are so inanely elitist even /lit/ thinks you are full shit. Granted, they are probably attacking you because their professors told them Shakespeare is the best ever. But your argument is just stupid. Oh man, whomst'd instead whomest, the English language is in jeopardy!

Someone post Mark Twain's long criticism of the German language because he basically shits on everything OP holds dear.

>>11543340
What did he say? I don't particularly like German because of its phonology and the fact that it only has one morphological tense. But I'm actually interested in what the nineteenth century Quentin Tarantino had to say on the subject.

>>11543311
>This is a strawman. You're confusing language evolution with the other 'degeneracies' much-lamented.

no im not

>Languages cannot be 'ranked' since what is the measure of ranking? How many cases it has? Well, what is the point of case? To communicate. Every single language in the world has this ability, otherwise it wouldn't be a language.

thank you - this is exactly what I mean. You can take this position if you want, theres just no point having the conversation. This is just an interesting conversation, its not serious scholarly inquiry, if you dont accept that complexity/simplicity exist on scales (in this context, at least), fine but whats the point of even talking?

>>11543311
languages aren't devolving.
by that logic the first spoken languages by the first hominids must've been absolutely complex beyond belief.

>>11543429
how complex was his language?

>>11543429
>aren't devolving.
meant to say "aren't always devolving"

>>11543429
reductio ad absurdum

>>11543453
If you make a statement you should be able to defend it at the extremes.
What are you even arguing then? That languages evolved up until a certain point, and then started devolving?

>>11543456
>If you make a statement you should be able to defend it at the extremes.

lol do you think youre in the oxford debating society?

>>11543456
>>11543458
Yeh this is kinda psychologically interesting. When the news media stopped printing reportage, investigative journalism and such, an entire generation of people were left with the idea that two people screaming opposite opinions at each other ('debate') is a good idea in discourse.

>>11543458
>reductio ad absurdum
>lol do you think youre in the oxford debating society?
boi what
4chan debates are far more sophisticated and though-provoking than oxf*Rd debates anyway. They have a few gems, but a lot of the modern ones are so derivative and unnecessary/inconsequential to most people.

>>11543442
Very complex. Probably had 50 genders

>>11543189
>not being a virgin Chad

>>11543099
>When your favorite fiction author makes a typo or a grammar mistake, his or her editors catch it and fix it
What constitutes a "mistake?" Faulkner, Joyce and other writers use incorrect grammar all the time. Can you really be so certain that the "mistakes" of Shakespeare were borne of ignorance? Also, you said "mine eyes," lmao. Do you also say "an hungered?"

>>11543720
I said mine eyes for literary effect because we’re talking about poetry
>My/mine and thy/thine were used similarly to a/an; "my" and "thy" preceded a word beginning with a consonant sound, while "mine" and "thine" preceded a word beginning with a vowel sound.

>>11543880
Yes, and that usage will almost always sound silly coming out of the mouth of any modern person