Author: Ano Sensei
Format: Video
Genre: Technique
🧑🎓Did Shakespeare really write in iambic pentameter? Discussion & reading of "To be or not to be"👀
© All rights reserved
Translated titles:
¿Shakespeare realmente escribió en pentámetro yámbico? Discusión y lectura de "To be or not to
Hat Shakespeare wirklich in jambischen Pentametern geschrieben? Diskussion & Lesung von "To be or no
Shakespeare a-t-il vraiment écrit en pentamètre iambique ? Discussion et lecture de "To be or not
Shakespeare realmente escreveu em pentâmetro iâmbico? Discussão e leitura de "To be or not to be"
هل كتب شكسبير حقًا في الخماسي التفاعيل؟ مناقشة وقراءة "
莎士比亚真的用抑扬格五音步写作吗？讨论和阅读"To be or not to be"
莎士比亞真的用抑揚格五音步寫作嗎？討論和閱讀"To be or not to be"
Shakespeare scriveva davvero in pentametro giambico? Discussione e lettura di "To be or not to be"
シェイクスピアは本当に弱強五歩格で書いたのですか? "To be or not to be"の討
Действительно ли Шекспир писал пятистопным ямбом? Обс
Subtítulos 字幕 Imibhalo engezansi 字幕 phụ đề سب ٹائٹلز Altyazılar คำบรรยาย ఉపశీర్షికలు வசன வரிகள் Субтитры Legendas Napisy na filmie obcojęzycznym ਉਪਸਿਰਲੇਖ उपशीर्षके Sari kata 자막 ಉಪಶೀರ್ಷಿಕೆಗಳು Sottotitoli Mga Subtitle Subtitles उपशीर्षक સબટાઈટલ Sous-titres زیرنویس Υπότιτλοι Untertitel সাবটাইটেল ترجمات التسميات التوضيحية ক্যাপশন Bildunterschriften λεζάντες زیرنویس ها Mga Caption captions legends કૅપ્શન્સ
कैप्शन keterangan didascalie ಶೀರ್ಷಿಕೆಗಳು 캡션 kapsyen मथळे ਸੁਰਖੀਆਂ napisy подписи தலைப்புகள் శీర్షికలు คำบรรยายภาพ کیپشنز chú thích amazwibela キャプション manukuu maelezo mafupi ఉపశీర్షికలు శీర్షికలు titulkyShow More
12 Comments
I don’t understand why the famous words from the Hamlet soliloquy couldn’t have been intentionally written in iambic pentameter… “To BE or NOT to BE, that IS the QUES-tion.” The word IS and both BE’s are stressed which to me, emphasize the idea of existing or living. “Is” and “be” are the complete opposite of nothingness. I think speaking or performing these lines with iambic pentameter certainly deapens them
Yes, indeed. I didn’t want to give the impression that they _couldn’t_ be read as iambic pentameter. I simply wanted to open up the possibility that it _could_ be read differently. Colin Reese makes much the same point as you do in the comments here, and I do take his point. I’m not sure we’re necessarily in stark disagreement here; I think all parties can probably agree that a mechanical adherence to a di DUM di DUM delivery can get stale pretty quickly. This video is simply about taking a look at how some flexibility might enhance the delivery.
Teacher, Could you explain to me why the phrasal verb “have at” means attack? What is the etymology of this phrasal verb?
I read that William Shakespeare used this phrasal verb in one of his books as “have at thee” with “thee” as an old way of saying “you”, modernizing it to “have at you”. More precisely, the book is “The History Of King Henry The Sixth, Third Part”, but what motivated the use of “have” and “at” to mean attack?
English has many verb + preposition combinations that have a meaning that is not always obvious. You will find “have at”, meaning “attack”, in several of Shakespeare’s plays (including _Hamlet_ ), as well as in other literature of the period.
It’s often difficult to find the origin of this kind of idiomatic usage. For example, why does “está a por uvas” mean “he’s lost” or (possibly) “he’s ignorant” in Spanish?
More to the point, perhaps, is the expression “voy a por ti”, which could also be used aggressively in some dialects of Spanish.
Sometimes we have a source for such expressions, but more often than not we can only speculate. We might speculate that “to have at” someone is a kind of abbreviation of “to have a go at” someone, where “go” basically means “try” or “attempt”, but I don’t think there is any clear evidence for that.
Note that we would speak of Shakespeare’s “plays”, rather than his “books”, since they were written as dramas. _Henry VI, part 3_ , for example, was first published in book form in the First Folio of 1623, several years after Shakespeare’s death.
@anosensei I’m not a native English speaker, my native tongue is Spanish, more precisely, Mexican Spanish. I saw on Quora that you sir are a specialist in English language, and that you have a youtube channel where you make educational videos. También vi que usted habla español y japonés, ¿es verdad, señor?
From my point of view, I think that languages have to be understood as native speakers understand them. That’s why I insist so much on finding the reasons why certain phrasal verbs like “have at” and another so confusing “do in” have the meaning they have. I’ve read that there is a branch of linguistics that’s called “cognitive linguistics”, and in cognitive linguistics there is a concept called “conceptual metaphor”.
@anosensei I haven’t read it enough to understand it completely, but I think the theory says that our common usage language is metaphorical, that we create abstract concepts from the similarities of concrete concepts or things. And I have read books teaching phrasal verbs with conceptual metaphors. Do you think, sir, that there is really a logic behind the thousands of Verb + Preposition’s combinations that could explain why the phrasal verbs have the meanings they do?
I would really like you, sir, to guide me on my way to learning phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs are a nightmare to me 😣
How should I learn them? Can I keep on learning them with the “Conceptual Metaphor” method which seems to make more sense?
Or, do you recommend me another methodology to study them?
> languages have to be understood as native speakers understand them.
But native speakers tend simply to accept that expressions like these have the meaning they do. They don’t normally question *why* in the way you are asking here.
“Have at” (meaning “attack”) is rather old-fashioned and “do in” (meaning “kill”) is slang. The latter would normally be used with the appropriate dialect grammar form and pronunciation (e.g., “‘e done ‘er in” = “he killed her”, not “he did her in”, as it would be in standard English).
As to *why* these expressions have the meaning they do, I don’t think anyone really knows. As I say, native speakers simply accept these constructions. Do you, for example, query why “estar crudo” means “to have a hangover”, or “Me vale madre” means “I don’t care”? Have you ever even thought about it?
If you have, you are unusual! Most native speakers generally just accept these things without thinking about it. Often, it doesn’t even occur to them that a non-native speaker might find them strange or have difficulty understanding them.
I know some teachers like the idea of “conceptual metaphor” as a way of teaching phrasal verbs. My advice would be to use whatever method works best.
There is a lot of confusion when it comes to some areas of English grammar. There isn’t even complete agreement about what a phrasal verb is, let alone the best way of teaching them!
By the way, have you seen my video on phrasal and prepositional verbs? You can find it here: https://youtu.be/36Df8l3iwho
Very nicely done! Nice “theory” (but not too much) and a very nice reading!
Thanks, Paul! As you can see, not everyone is of a mind about this, but that’s more or less to be expected. When it comes to Shakespeare, it seems almost axiomatic that whatever pleases some will displease others!
I would challenge this to the hilt.
I see your point, but it removes all the ‘acting notes’ that are inherent in the use – and more importantly – the abuse of the IP structure.
It may make for an easier reading; but a much diminished performance.
Lots of respect for your work, but I disagree.
🧑🎓Well, thank you at least for your reaction, Colin! Yes, I know this approach is somewhat controversial, and I am an academic of course, not a professional actor.
One of the things I like to do in my videos is challenge existing assumptions. Everyone “knows” that Shakespeare wrote in iambic pentameter, so another presentation on that would hardly add anything. I’m interested in getting people to look at things in a different way.
And there are, as the video points out, not a few proponents of this approach. It has a history, a body of scholarship behind it, along with actors like Mort Paterson challenging the traditional di DUM di DUM approach (https://daily.jstor.org/are-we-getting-shakespeares-rhythms-all-wrong/).
It seems that pretty much anything one says about Shakespeare someone else will come along and disagree. Not that long ago, it was considered de rigeur for Shakespeare to be performed using received pronunciation, a view convincingly challenged by Ben Crystal and others.
This issue is perhaps similar. We will never know exactly how Shakespeare’s metre was delivered on the early modern stage but, as Paterson argues, it may not have been strictly iambic, even in ten-syllable lines, so it seems reasonable there should at least be some flexibility in the way it is delivered today.