/lit/ - Literature

>>12006227
Old English? That might be a bit further back than you mean. Melville has a weird writing style that seems a little antiquated compared to today's english, but if you go slow you might even find that you prefer it.

oh goddamnit...

>>12006247
A thousand years further back

>>12006227
even Shakespeare isn't in old english. or did someone translate it into old english?

>>12006296
Pretty sure OP is the kind of retard that thinks old English = using the words thy and thou every once in a while.

>>12006325
I thought he was just referring to the language with fondness, I've bought many books in good old English myself.

>>12006296
>>12006325
Don't be a pedant. OP is not a native speaker and clearly was just referring to the mid-nineteenth-century prose used by Melville.

>>12006227
If you are not enjoying it or feel overall confused, it is probably too difficult for you. At the same time, if your goal is to be able to read something like Moby Dick in the original, the best way to prepare is to do the reading. Either way, keep at it as long as you are still enjoying the book and understanding it alright. When you've finished the book, you will be ready to read similar works.

>>12006395
I downloaded the epub to double check and confirmed i was wrong about the old English bit. I'll just have to read with a dictionary at hand. It sets the tone nicely so far though.

>>12006227
Today english is so commonplace that it really shouldn't be too difficult to read a novel in it, even if you're ESL. I'm one, and I could read Moby-Dick even without a dictionary (a word here and there could go over my head, but nothing too substantial - probably because I had already cut my teeth on Shakespeare before starting with Melville). It just takes practice - reading.

Will I lose a lot if I read a translation?

>>12006682
it depends on the translation. find out who's translated it and check reviews about the translation in particular.
I'm a filthy monolinguist who reads lots of spanish and russian language books and thats what I always do. You don't want a bad translation making you think badly of a book that doesn't deserve it, and there are plenty of sub-par translations out there.

>>12006682
Yes, more so than many other english novels.
Learn the language. In this day and age it's an embarrassment for a serious reader of literature not to be able to read in English.

>>12006693
>find out who's translated it and check reviews about the translation in particular
Mostly useless. Reviews are often written by people who don't speak the other language and haven't done any proper comparisons of different versions. That's how we end up with people here praising Pope's and Fagles' Homer, for example.

>>12006710
>That's how we end up with people here praising Pope's and Fagles' Homer, for example.
Everyone knows the dopest translation of Homer was done by the swede Erland Lagerlöf.

>>12006710
mostly useless is better than entirely useless, like not checking at all.
at the very least, you can find out how recently the translation was done, and the translator's literary history.

>>12006227
>>12006460
>>12006682
I don't know about other apps/methods, but using google books lets you hold on a word to see the definition. Helped me a lot with DFW, and in the case of Moby Dick, it adds a lot to the beauty of his writing.

>>12006871
Disgusting.

Use this OP, it's god-tier
http://www.powermobydick.com/

>>12006460
I suggest a collegiate dictionary.
Cheap used.

>>12006354
>>I thought he was just referring to the language with fondness, I've bought many books in good old English myself.
keksimus maximus

>>12006227
It's not in old English, you colossal bafoon.

>>12006325
>>12007925
OP is obviously referring to an earlier style of modern English. Read between the lines you pedantic brainlet faggots.

>>12007993
>Oh yea, I just bought a book from like the 19th century, why don't they talk like Valley girls?

fuck off. he should've known what he was getting into

>>12007993
>Be Incorrect
>Call others brainlets
Yeah, that's a totally solid argument you got there.

>>12007993
OP did not capitalize “old” but would have surely known we would have chimped out by including the word at all.

>>12007993
Hey look! It's Richardo Retardo. Let's all point and laugh at him.

>>12006227
wow I didn't know someone translated moby dick into old english

>>12006743
>Everyone knows the dopest translation of Homer was done by the swede Björkeson.

Fixed that for you.

>>12006944
Yeah that's pretty useful, I'll have to keep this open in the background while I read

>>12008212
Tsk! Björkeson's translation might be more precise in places, but he lacks poetic balls, and that's why Lagerlöf can verbally supplex him from the afterlife.

He also didn't do the translation in an unheated hostel, sitting in bed with all his clothes on, then die of alcoholism. Lagerlöf was a true poet.

>>12006247
>>12006284
>>12006296
>>12006325
>>12007925
>>12008004
>>12008167
>reasons for interpreting "old English" as an adjective phrase: context, capitalization of only the second word
>reasons for interpreting "old English" as a compound: being a cockgargling autismofaggot
bretty easy choice innit :DDD

>>12006743
>>12008699
>not risberg

>>12009328
>Someone actually wrote this

>>12009518
>gargle gargle