Why can the Bible (the literal word of God) be translated to modern English but not Shakespeare...

*forbidden from

Early what?

When did I exclude foreign authors you spastic, I’m talking about Shakespeare

>The Bible’s messages can be communicated without adherence to specific language

I really doubt that. What does "I am that I am" means, actually? I doubt the meaning of that phrase was identical in the original hebrew. Many such examples.

Also this. Monolinguals don't understand that sometimes a word can have more than one meaning in one language and the translator has to decide to use a word that won't have the same nuance.

Cause a modern English speaker can understand Shakes without changes. What a dumb question.

Because the Bible is translated from a totally different language, so any English translation is only emulating the original. Early modern English is no closer to ancient Hebrew and Greek than contemporary English. Meanwhile, Shakespeare wrote in early modern English, a contemporary English version is easily contrasted to the style of the original.

If you are an English speaker you should try to put the effort to understand Shakespeare in his own words. Unless you want to learn Greek and Hebrew then your best bet is translation.

I know that it is shocking, but there exist other languages other than English, languages that people use every day and write with, these languages have Shakespeare translations and few people talk about how good or bad these translations are.

>the literal word of God
but it isn't, it's the narration of the life and words of Jesus by other people also we don't know for sure how many modifications it went through

I read that there are many false friends in his work, for example.

>False friends are so common in Shakespeare that even counting them is a challenge
fullmeasurepress.com/pages/FAQ/FalseFriends.html

That's an excellent example of something that doesn't translate actually. The Hebrew is "ehyeh asher ehyeh", as most sounds in yahweh are in ehyeh, and they look similar in consonantal Hebrew (אהיה — יהוה). This is sometimes emulated in English by putting the "I Am" in small caps, like "the Lord" for yahweh.

shakespeare is already in modern english

All of that article can be solved by reading an edition with footnotes.

Even this shakespeare site recognizes that it isn't the same English that is spoken nowadays

shakespeare.org.uk/education/teaching-resources/em-english-vs-me/

>This resource outlines the major differences between the English Shakespeare wrote – what language historians call Early Modern English – and the English we speak today, Modern English. Includes a short practical activity to deepen understanding, and an answer sheet.

and this guy who translated him shows that his work is full of false friends, for example:
fullmeasurepress.com/pages/FAQ/FalseFriends.html

Shakespeare uses a far, far larger vocabulary, as well as a lot more wordplay. In fact even using contemporary pronounciation loses a little of the wordplay

Attached: islam4everyone-if-you-love-me-take-me-with-you-to-14023566.png (500x1094, 171K)

The truth of the fundamental Subject operating through fundamental Semiosis.

Attached: tumblr_p99pp7WbNa1suuc8do1_1280.jpg (960x960, 218K)

>far, far larger vocabulary
Translating doesn't mean dumbing down.
fullmeasurepress.com/pages/FAQ/DumbingDown.html

>"You're dumbing him down." That's the response I occasionally get when people learn that I am translating Shakespeare. But translating Shakespeare into more modern and comprehensible language is not the same as dumbing him down. After all, a translator could choose to make a work of literature even more difficult than the original.

Again, just read an edition with footnotes. I used signet classics when I first started Shakes.

Because Shakespeare wrote in modern English.

Translating means dumbing down here, since anyone who is fluent in English and has IQ of 100 or higher can read Chaucer if its annoted and he reads a quick course in Middle English.

Attached: funny-hijab-meme.jpg (480x400, 98K)

Are you saying that any work that is written in present-day English is dumb by nature?

If what it is being translated out of can be parsed without difficulty by any non-brainlet English with notes

Attached: CassieHijabMUG.jpg (1524x1600, 318K)

If what it is being translated out of can be parsed without difficulty by any non-brainlet English speaker with notes

Attached: CassieHijabMUG.jpg (1524x1600, 318K)

If you need notes then you have a difficulty. Someone is spoon-feeding you.

Changing an already readable text to contemporary language is also spoonfeeding. And even then you would need footnotes because not every nuance can be made clear in the text itself through translation. At least by reading the original you're reading it as it was written by the author.

>why you dont need to bother about prose with nonfiction but you have to if its fiction

and i wont look at this fucking thread ever again because im not going to argue whether the bible is or is not fiction

>If you need notes then you have a difficulty
Most notes in the texts I use (Oxford) are not neccessary for me, the ones that are would be required regardless as they cover allusions to other texts or jokes or beliefs of Shakespeare's own times

You don't read Shakespeare for the story

Do you guys realize that by saying these things you're indirectly saying that present-day English is a shit language?

What about the people who have read Shakespeare through translations throughout the world? Did they experience nothing of value?

They experience a major decrease in value obviously

wut?

cringe

He means you read him for the poetry or sometimes prose. The plot is important to Shakespeare but in the way the subject matter of a Renaissance painting is important.

the story may be fun but it’s the writing that makes us study it

>then why can anything be translated? You'll never understand the authors intent you'll never understand anyones intent,mental images,meaning,definitions all have different meanings,etc etc.

Might aswell read mainlander and kys

Attached: A-2474127-1464548745-9230.jpeg.jpg (600x904, 213K)

Of course, the actual syntactical content of the Bible isn’t entirely translatable, as you have said - but simple parables that end with messages like ‘don’t judge thy neighbour’ don’t necessarily need to be wrapped in any sort of specific language for the message to be imparted. I don’t think the same is true of Bill.