🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:44:56 -0800 (PST), Panu
<craoibhin66@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:a20f9b95-0f8f-413d-8726-ae283c393108@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:

> On Mar 4, 12:06�am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> Panu wrote:

>>> This is what I find problematic. The fact is, that
>>> Shakespeare's language is only partly intelligible to a
>>> modern reader. Thus, in order to appreciate his "mot
>>> juste" you basically depend on cribs and guidebooks and
>>> commentaries, on a whole interpretative tradition -

>> Perhaps you do; I find the great majority of his language
>> entirely readable. �That was true when I first encountered
>> him ~50 years ago, too. �Note that one can appreciate the
>> language without necessarily catching all of the wordplay
>> ('her C's, her U's, and her T's').

> I don't want to be nasty, but this sounds to me as if you
> would be trying to please your inner cultist.

Then clean out your ears.  I'm telling you the plain facts
of the matter.  Shakespeare's English is not particularly
difficult.  And by your own admission you're not qualified
to judge.

>> [...]

>>> If you dislike the word "cult", let's call it a perfectly
>>> legitimate religion, then. �[...]

>> Your view is no more reasonable for being couched in
>> slightly less objectionable language.

> I don't think it is exaggerated to see parallels between
> Melanie Sands's cult of Shakespeare and the Hindutva
> contingent's cult of that ridiculous, dead, artificial
> lingo, the name of which I do not condescend to mention.

Nothing that she's posted in sci.lang suggests a cult.  You,
on the other hand, clearly have a burr under your saddle.