> and that's why there are so few "modern English" productions put on
Modern productions of shakespeare or even victorian era stories constantly make their way into Hollywood. "Clueless" is just a modernized version of "Emma"
Modern productions of shakespeare or even victorian era stories constantly make their way into Hollywood. "Clueless" is just a modernized version of "Emma"
Ophelia was randy AF if you study her verses closer especially the "mad scene" (act 4, scene 5)
Shakespeare wrote for the groundlings
And this is a meaningless insult. One might say it needs translation into Normal People English.
> The point here being that one could write a million bowdlerised versions of Emma
Who cares? The point is, the plots and characters are readily adaptable into modern settings, and that IS a valid modernization of Shakespeare, as McWhorter wants. There are a million ways to do that, and godspeed to all of them.
Having dukes and queens and earls speaking modern English is just stupid.
What does it give you that "oversimplified" or "simplistic" does not?
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r...
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reductive
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/321096/what-is-the-defini...
https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/the-literacy-crisis-in-t...
Perhaps we'd do better to cull the amount of words used? To reduce to available pool to the most efficient use of letters? Personally I think that would be double plus ungood, but perhaps I need to brush up on my 'normal people English'.
Look, sarcastic nose tweaking aside, a new word is a gift! When I come across one I add it to a list and count myself richer for having found a more nuanced understanding of how others view the world.
> Perhaps it's new and frightening to you because you're level of literacy is not what it might be?
and you can't spell "your." My level of literacy is most likely much higher than yours.
Using pretentious words in order to sound more educated than you are is the very thing I'm talking about.
> To reduce to available pool to the most efficient use of letters?
(Pun intended there, I guess?) "Reducing" things to their essence is what we do in science and mathematics. It's a good thing.
This, at any rate, is my usage.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/
That word you dislike means you've violated "But Not Simpler"